Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner, etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also
believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator before the
debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers than it is to
suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that
both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like
you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should
understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but
we are to stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty

As biased as the media is, it's still a tight race. No one is telling you
what to think, they're just lowering your expectations. That way, when Palin
hammers Biden it will have a much greater impact.

I expect Palin to get roasted. It will be embarrassing.

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.
Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.
I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?

Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.


I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion.

Cheers
Marty

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:29:46 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.

Dave doesn't consider himself "regular folks". That's where the
delusions start.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:05 -0400, Marty said:

If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly.

Absolutely.

Oh, I'm sorry Dave, must have lost my head, I forgot that you are the
only intelligent person in the USA.

Cheers
Marty

On 1 Oct 2008 18:52:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:05 -0400, Marty said:

If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly.

Absolutely.

Dave's projecting.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:10:05 -0400, Marty said:

Do you suppose they'll tell viewers that the moderator has a direct economic
interest in Obama's winning?

You been hangin' out with Larry Dave? Is the moderator a Freemason?

She's releasing a book featuring Obama, with release scheduled for
inauguration day. Ya think she might sell a few more books if Obama is
elected than if he's an also-ran? Do ya, huh?


Sure, and you think a honest 'merican journalist would let a little
thing like that get in the way of her integrity? Pshaww.


Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:17 -0600, "Charles Momsen"
said:


Watch the debate and see.


Do you suppose they'll tell viewers that the moderator has a direct economic
interest in Obama's winning?


You mean her book that's been on Amazon and the Random House website for
some time? And that was discussed with Howard Kurtz several weeks ago in
the Washington Post? - The one that was ignored by MacCain's staff until
they realized John has been sliding on down in the polls? - Actually,
anyone who has ever watched Ifil couldn't help but recognize her bias
for Obama.

But I agree that she wasn't a good choice. - Not because she will be
unfair to Sarah, but because she may be unfair to Biden. She may think
she has to lean over backwards to avoid any appearance of being too hard
on poor little Sarah, in an effort to show that she has run a fair and
balanced event. Instead, we need a moderator that won't take any crap
from either of the candidates.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:17 -0600, "Charles Momsen"

said:


Watch the debate and see.


Do you suppose they'll tell viewers that the moderator has a direct
economic
interest in Obama's winning?


You mean her book that's been on Amazon and the Random House website for
some time? And that was discussed with Howard Kurtz several weeks ago in
the Washington Post? - The one that was ignored by MacCain's staff until
they realized John has been sliding on down in the polls? - Actually,
anyone who has ever watched Ifil couldn't help but recognize her bias for
Obama.

But I agree that she wasn't a good choice. - Not because she will be
unfair to Sarah, but because she may be unfair to Biden. She may think she
has to lean over backwards to avoid any appearance of being too hard on
poor little Sarah, in an effort to show that she has run a fair and
balanced event. Instead, we need a moderator that won't take any crap from
either of the candidates.

Jim


I heard and now believe that Biden can win the debate in the first minute.
He should apologize to her on behalf of all those people who attacked her
personally, her family, etc. I heard this suggestion on NPR, the center of
the great bastion of left-leaning journalists/communists, which includes
Disney/Viacom, News Corp., GE, etc. Oh wait! NPR gets its funding from
actual people!



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com