24/7 news doesn't make us any smarter

I was expecting to be unsurprised when I read the headline. But then when when I started to read and saw for example, that 69 percent of those surveyed can name the current vice president... YIKES!

Who should be suprised? Just look at how many people still want to believe Sadam was responsible for 9/11.

Then there's FOX, probably the most inacurate news outlet. How do they stay in business other then cater to the lowest forms of intelligence?

Interesting.

I knew Fox News viewers were morons (other studies have shown that too), but I didn't expect Rush's to be at least somewhat informed.

Here's a University of Maryland study that found that Fox News viewers were actually less informed (or, perhaps, more mis-informed) than people who don't even follow the news:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

One Pew poll finding that the above article doesn't mention: Republicans generally know more about the issues than Democrats:

"Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least."

The same things people cared about 20 years ago are the same things they care about today.

Only they're not necessarily the same people.

For example, if you asked the average 25 year old, 20 years ago, what their plans were for retirement funding/planning you'd have most likely been told "I've got plenty of time to think about it." That now 45 year old is a lot more likely to have retirement planning at or near the top of their list of things to do.

For true scary entertainment though, I recommend Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" bit when he does it on a college campus. How some of these students got into college much less graduated high school is a mystery to me.

Rush Limbaugh's audience holding a high level of knowledge about current news? I still haven't noticed anything mentioned on his website about the troop extension in Iraq. How many days is it going to take?

It not surprising that people who watch CNN are ill-informed, the channel has very little actual content, just endless repetition of headlines and very brief sound-bites. And pictures that are often stock footage, having nothing to do with the story.

On another point, I remember when Tom Foley got ousted. A substantial number of voters thought that his replacement was going to be speaker instead. Now who was his replacement? There's a puzzler.

bruce,

"But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least."

How is that quantified? Either by the author or you?

But we do know sooo much more because of 24/7 news....

We know all about Anna Nicole Smith's sex life.

We know that a bunch of Duke Lacrosse players were guilty of rape. (Oops, maybe not!)

We know all about any number of cute white missing women.

Just read one of Little Johnny D's rants and you can certainly see why this is a true statement!

It not surprising that people who watch CNN are ill-informed, the channel has very little actual content, just endless repetition of headlines and very brief sound-bites. And pictures that are often stock footage, having nothing to do with the story.

Posted by: PaulG | Apr 16, 2007 9:32:23 AM

It reminds me of that great bit the Daily Show did a while back after people got shot in an airport terminal. Everyone on CNN saying "We don't know" as to what was happening at the time.

Nice cracks about Fox News. In fact, one here says it is the most inaccurate news outlet? Funny, but Fox News has not been caught in any scandal like CBS News (fake National Guard memos), NBC News (deliberately blowing up cars to make people think they blow up on contact), CNN (too numerous scandals to mention, but Gen. Westmoreland and Agent Orange is one), NY Times (Jayson Blair, reporting that the Arctic ice cap was melting and then retracting that and countless other false news reports it has had to take back in recent weeks).

And the fact that Limbaugh's audience is well informed is not surprised. Folks who tend to listen to Limbaugh are newshounds, infohounds and very well informed people.

No surprise that the least informed are the Loony Lefties, who get all thier ideas from their Loony Left blogs that report no truths (Karl Rove indictment, anyone??).

I've known plenty of ditto-heads & they are among the most ignorant people I know.

Think I'm off my rocker? They're still talking about WMD's in Iraq & Sadam's link to 9/11.

I think they need to stop stealing my bong water.

Ripping on Fox News is par for the course on the left.

They don't like to debate, so they try to discount any alternative view.

Examples:
Fox News is Faux News
Global Warming debate is "over"
Disagree on race issues you are a racist
Disagree on gay marraige, you are a homophobe.

Insert any issue and they have a defense mechanism in place to shelter themselves from another view point.

They don't like to debate, only smear, cheap shot, demean.....and generally act like children.

John D and JD,

Thanks for supplementing the Pew research.

I like debates. But even though, as a secular who's too slow from all that bong-water, I'm tired of having no challenges when debating the right. Too many arguments they either suffered humiliating losses or never won, yet, they continue to bring-up.

Just stop with the bs already. Move on!

None of this suprised me at all. Come here any day and you'll see that intelligent debate isn't what happens on news blogs. It's shrillness that wins the day.

JD's list is right. The left is all about promoting how tolerant they are, until you, god forbid, disagree with them over one of their sacred cows.

Jeff,

Quit it! You're killing me!

If you think we Loony Lefters have the market cornered on name calling - y'all need to get out more.

Jeff and JD:
Since your heros' feet of clay have become too obvious to ignore, the two of you have really done a lot of whining about the posts on this blog. You can dish it out but you sure can't take it. And by the way, EVERYONE is intolerant on both sides of the aisle. It all depends on what each person's bete noir is.

A lecture on tolerance for opposing political views from Jeff is like a lecture on the dangers of deficit spending from George W Bush.

It's true for all the Republicans around here. question Bush on the war and you're a "defeatist", you "support the insurgents", you're part of the "looney left", you hate america and on and on and on..

FOX NOISE CHANNEL FOX NOISE CHANNEL FOX NOISE CHANNEL

ALERT ! ALERT ! ALERT ! ALERT ! ALERT ! ALERT !

"WE DISTORT,YOU DECIDE"

"WE REPORT,I DECIDE NOT TO WATCH"

TERROR ALERT ELEVATED!

It's almost as funny as a lecture from Tony on tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Thanks for proving my point.

Catherine, where is my "whining" about the posts here? I didn't create this study. I merely pointed out the truth of what it implies. That 24-7 news doesn't make anyone smarter and that this blog certainly proves that. God, you are all so angry. It used to be that we could have intelligent debate around here without calling each other names and we could pretty much ignore the screamers. Now, even the posters who can have an intelligent debate resort to the dirty tactics, the screaming, the smearing and the lies.

If you think the only one that thinks this place is unnecessarily angry and shrill then you need only look at a few recent stories. Several posters have noticed how angry and shrill this place has become and none of them are me. I'll be the first to admit I have a political viewpoint and I enjoy expressing it. But people like Catherine and Tony not only have a political viewpoint but they will attack, attack, attack anyone who has the audacity to disagree with it, and completely tune out evidence that doesn't support their own way of thinking. That's not tolerence, that's tunnel vision. It's no wonder our country's in the mess we're in with people like them getting elected to public office. Bush is just as bad (I never voted for him once) with the polarizing, non-stop campaigning, but the other side isn't doing a thing to make the situation better. No one is at all committed to working together.

Everything JD said about the "loony left" is right. This story is a case in point. Several posters have used the information to say how unintelligent people who watch Fox News are, while completely ignoring the horrible grades for CNN. And ignoring the downright fabrications that John D posted. If you really think CNN is that great, I have two words for you: Nancy Grace.

If any of you watch the Daily Show I'm sure you saw the "responsible reporting" that she did on the Duke Lacrosse case.

"It's almost as funny as a lecture from Tony on tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Thanks for proving my point."

No lecture Jeff, just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. You turn to the name calling and distortions as fast as anyone around here. You ignore all facts as much as anyone around here.

I'm still waiting for you to either produce the quotes or give an apology over in the 4/12 Imus thread. If you're serious about raising the level of debate, that's a good start.

Not true, Tony. There'll be no apology forthcoming, either. When you say that the Iraqi government is illegitimate, you're essentially agreeing with people Muqtada Al-Sadr. That's an insult to the millions of Iraqis that risked their lives to vote in the first free election that nation's had in a generation. So, when I say you're agreeing with the enemy, it's the truth. It would be an insult to all the people who voted on and approved a constitution for me to apologize to you and allow your slander to go unchecked.

So, no, you'll get no apology. But you should apologize to the voters of Iraq. I'll just sit and wait for that. The ball's in your court. Time to apologize. Again, Tony, I can't express it enough, it's win above all else positions like yours that are causing this mess.

In the conservative world & their war on terrorism, all the dots lead to Clinton & as if by magic, ignore twelve years of Reagan/Bush & reconnect with Carter.

So what happened during those twelve years?

Why is Muammar Qadhafi still the leader of Libya? In the eighties, he was the single biggest supporter of terrorism by far in the Middle East. He openly supported dozens of terrorist attacks around the war, practically invited terrorist camps into Libya & was even linked to the TWA bombing.

Why no one openly asks why GWB 41 didn’t do anything to stop the 1st WTC attacks in, 2/93, when Clinton was only in office for several weeks?

Why did Reagan pull the US troops out of Beirut after over two hundred soldiers were killed by a terrorist bombing? Was he worried about the presidential elections?

How come Reagan wasn’t held accountable for illegally selling weapons to Iran?

Why was Reagan supporting Saddam when it was already known he was a brutal dictator? Remember, Saddam was hung for atrocities he committed in 82. Are we to assume for several years, Reagan knew nothing about that?

Why did GWB 41 insist on leaving Saddam in power after the 1st Iraq war, against the advice of most of the generals? Remember the Kurds being slaughtered by Saddam after the US pulled out?

Why was there so much support given to the Taliban & Al Qaida, even though they made no secret as to how radical they were? As you may recall, the CIA helped train Osama.

If you’re looking for answers to these questions, here’s a hint; You won’t find them on FOX or hear it on Limabugh’s radio program.

Jeff, telling the same lie again and again doesn't make it the truth.

Please produce the quote where I said I believed the Iraqi government was illegitimate.

I have said that there are a large number of people in Iraq that believe it to be illegitimate. That fact is in arguably true, as evidenced by the insurgency against it.

Again, either produce the quote, or apologize.

If youy choose to do neither, everyone is going to get a nice example of how you resort to slander and lies.

Ah, the Duke La Cross rape case. The NY Times ran countless articles blurting out how guilty these evil kids were. NBC News smeared the kids left and right. Mediamatters.org says Don Imus is a "conservative," when Imus supported Kerry and has been anti-war.

Yes, the truthfulness and honesty from such "news" outlets as NY Times and NBC News.

It also seems to me the folks on the right here have been debating this issue by presenting truths and examples. From the Left, all we've gotten so far are Fox Noise, Fox Noise and Rush Limpbag, and the morons on the right.

When it comes to debating points, I have never lost a debate with a Loony Lefter. Talk about easy prey.

Catherine,

You rock holla-back-girl!

You hit the nail on the head with your description of Jeff,he's the first one on here to start crying to the moderator if he doesn't get his way.
I think he learned this at the Sean Insanity Academy for Young Republicans.

Still nothing mentioned about the deployment extension for US soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan on Rush Limbaugh’s website. You think it has to do with this news not fitting the “it’s not a positive development on the war on terror in Iraq we could use to show liberal drive-by media bias” template?

I’m not concerned about conservatives not hearing about this since, as John D. mentioned, “…Limbaugh's audience is well informed is not surprised. Folks who tend to listen to Limbaugh are newshounds, infohounds and very well informed people".

I’m sure something will be mentioned about the extension in The American Spectator when it comes out next month.

When it comes to debating points, I have never lost a debate with a Loony Lefter. Talk about easy prey.

Posted by: John D | Apr 16, 2007 1:24:46 PM

Ahhh... John D is a giant in his own imagination. Better than nowhere, I guess.

Would you care to take a poll on that statement, John? I'm willing to bet dollars to dimes that the overwhelming majority of Swampers (meaning everyone but you and whatever pseudonyms you go by) think you've never WON a debate in here.

I just heard about the tragedy at Virginia Tech. From past experience, I don't intend to watch CNN. This is a situation where "up to the minute" = "probably wrong". That coupled with CNN's looping video usually make the coverage on CNN and other TV channels worse than useless. I'll keep checking in on the Trib news site, maybe on a newspaper site in Virginia. The reporters in Roanoke will know the territory and who to talk to.

God, you are all so angry. It used to be that we could have intelligent debate around here without calling each other names and we could pretty much ignore the screamers. Now, even the posters who can have an intelligent debate resort to the dirty tactics, the screaming, the smearing and the lies.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 16, 2007 12:41:59 PM

I invite anyone who is interested in Jeff's reasoned discourse to go back to April 9 and read the post on Durbin and the pet food hearing. He made one post and when he got called on it, posted 14 times to defend what he said. Most of his defense was that people were putting words in his mouth or being spinmeisters. That's a typical Jeff routine.

Jeff, are you auditioning for Hannity or Tucker Carlson's shows?

I repeat- you can dish it out but you can't take it.

God, you are all so angry. It used to be that we could have intelligent debate around here without calling each other names and we could pretty much ignore the screamers. Now, even the posters who can have an intelligent debate resort to the dirty tactics, the screaming, the smearing and the lies.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 16, 2007 12:41:59 PM

I invite anyone who is interested in Jeff's reasoned discourse to go back to April 9 and read the post on Durbin and the pet food hearing. He made one post and when he got called on it, posted 14 times to defend what he said. Most of his defense was that people were putting words in his mouth or being spinmeisters. That's a typical Jeff routine.

Jeff, are you auditioning for Hannity or Tucker Carlson's shows?

I repeat- you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Posted by: Catherine | Apr 16, 2007 2:05:12 PM

Catherine... don't attack when the guy is attempting to make a departure from slander (albeit an accusatory-toned departure)....

He is right that there's way too much of the childish slander and talking-points chatter from both sides in here. It'd be a much better place if we could stay above that kind of "debate".

I'm guilty of it as well. I allow myself to be dragged down by the Trolls (re: John D and Paulo) as well.

Maybe we should come to a democratic agreement as to who the above-board debaters are in here and accord them some kind of status (difficult to implement, but it'd make a nice system)... maybe a mod could allow us a once-a-month vote of some sort?

John D,

"When it comes to debating points, I have never lost a debate with a Loony Lefter. Talk about easy prey."

You pompous twit.

I guess that vote idea wouldn't work... no way to stop ballot stuffing in an online format with a very limited voter populace.

I got to go fill-up my (made south of the border) suv again. Don’t want to go to a gas station that gets oil from a radical mid-east country, so I’ll choose this (gas station now owned by a Socialist government) station where it’s cheaper.

Looks like my support the troops decal was swiped by those damn liberals again. Hopefully this station will have a (made in a communist country) magnet I can buy. Better yet, I need to (flag made in 3rd world country by minors) buy an American flag.

Got done filling-up my truck just in time to listen to Limbaugh ( radio made in a 3rd world country) on the radio. Besides, I don’t like taking mass transit. Too much tax money wasted on that.

Got to show those tree-hugging hybrid drivers what it means to be an American.

From the comments above, it seems that a lot of people who don't like them are watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with attack debates. I didn't get "called" on anything in the pet food debate. I wrote something that mentioned none of the veterinarians that were meeting with Durbi, but rather said that I consider Durbin and the political activist group PETA to be human rats. The post never once mentioned any veterinarian or dignitary.

So, Catherine and Tony, because one of the weapons in their arsenal is putting words in other people's mouths, posted messages saying "why do you think these veteriniarians are rats?" You might say that's "a typical Jeff routine," Catherine, but it's really not. You and Tony don't know better than me what's going on my head. You can't simply infer meaning onto my words, ESPECIALLY when I never mentioned the people who your inferences claimed were the subject of my remarks.

This is how low the debate has become on this board, that Catherine could try to defame me with words I never once typed or never said and then trot it out as some kind of warped "evidence" that I was in the wrong and that she knows more of what goes on inside my head than I do, is just... typical.

Now, watch what happens. She and Tony will post and re-post that entire exchange and continue to try and prove that they know better what I was thinking then I do. How DARE I disagree with them about what my thoughts are. It doesn't matter if it's the truth or not, it only matters that they're right.

I can take any type of bare knuckles debate you want to have. What I can't take is other people telling me what's going on inside my head and putting words into my mouth. That's hitting below the belt and it's a testament to their devotion to sleaze that they stand up and defend it right here.

Now I'll have to spend the next few hours proving I know better what I was thinking than they did. Great.

Dave, I'd be for some kind of mod system. We've tried to institute some kind of civility control system here before and none of the moderators did anything about it.

Jeff-

I'm not going to refight the great vet debate with you, but I will suggest that you consider that when your words are not interpreted in the way you desired that attacking those who simply asked a question and firing off half a dozen angry reponses within a few minutes doesn't exactly raise the level of debate.

Sjnce a majority of the posters in here are of the Loony Left, the opinions of most mean nothing to me.

Really, look at all the nonsense dishes out by John E., Roman B, Tony and countless others. Rarely does your ilk delve into reality or debate with examples and points that haven't been rehashes over and over by moveon.org, dailykos and whatever other left-wing blog you folks visit.

I would love for a forum in which I and whatever other conservatives who want to attempt to debate you folks. Like I said, easy prey.

I'll use a cousin of mine, for instance. Swears up and down that the U.S. has killed 600,000 Iraqis since 2003. When challenged, he then says, we didn't directly kill them but our presence there caused their death. Then when pointed out that the UN said 35,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006, the deadliest year yet, and if one was to take that number (and keeping in mind, the worst year of four) and multiplying it by 4, one gets to 140,000 and not 600,000, so where do you get that figure? Well he admits it's from a left wing, anti-war site, yet even noting the UN's numbers still discounts that and says it's 600,000 killed in Iraq by the U.S. or because of our actions.

This is a typical argument I have had over and over with plenty of the Left wing ilk.

Like I said, easy prey.

Oh and Dave, I only post with one name -- mine, or at least it's my partial name. Do not post under ANY other name. I leave that for John E (who even posts as me on occasion) and his friends to use multiple names.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is a "left-wing, anti-war site"?

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Umm, Tony, "may have died?" I'm glad you've given us your source and I respect that you're providing a link and not just throwing a number out there, but heck, both me and you "may have died" today, too. But we didn't. We may have died at any point in the last three years and that'd have as much basis in reality as the assumptions of this study.

Not trying to start a stupid fight, but I'm just those three little words in the first sentence certainly jumped out at me.

I think it's pretty sad that 1/3 of Americans don't know who their VP is.

Oh, and whether you agree with it or not, the "600,000 dead" was published in the Lancet, a peer-reviewed journal. I don't understand how someone can flippantly dismiss that report while at the same time criticizing the left for arguing without "facts." Either explain the facts, or keep quiet, but don't just ignore the facts that don't help your case.

Here we go again with Jeff trying to moderate the Swamp.

Tucker Carlson w/bowtie = Jeff

Lil' Jeany Dee,I laughed when you called us "easy prey".

Jeff-

Just disproving the "undefeated" Johnny D's contention that the number was made up by the left and only comes from "left-wing, anti-war" sites.

As to the validity of the study, it's based on a statistical analysis so the numbers are not exact, but since exact numbers are unavailable, it's the best method we have.

Andy, because of those three little words "may have died." Peer review that in any journal you want, but it won't change the meaning of "may have" in the English language. Whenever that came out we had a spirited debate about it and in one of his posts Mark Silva essentially agreed that the number had no basis in reality.

Lil' Jeany Dee,I laughed when you called us "easy prey".

Posted by: John E | Apr 16, 2007 4:35:46 PM

John... I know, right... Every time I see "loony left" in a post, my mind's reading voice switches from normal to pre-pubescent.

Jeff... I don't necessarily want "civility-control". Although it would be nice to have some sort of peer-reviewed ranking system for the regulars.

I used to post on a website called "BigSoccer" (yes, I'm a commie kickball fan/player) which had a good system. you could give posters positive/negative feedback (limited amount of feedback per person), with comments, and it accrued such feedback with a basic "peer score". It helped weed out the schmucks from the credible.

Zee Jean Dee bosts uuder one naeem, but uses multeeball bursonalitees. Eez veery efficieent.

Zee Trapper

Man, what a shock!

We're really not any smarter that we used to be??

You would think with more TeeVee 'news' we would be a lot smarter!

Look at what 'films' are big hits at the movies.

Dumb, Dumber, and Dumberer are popular for a reason. It makes the patrons feel 'smart'.

"24/7 news doesn't make us any smarter"

SHHHHHH!!!!! CLTV might hear that!

Dave, I'd be totally for a peer review system like that. I, too, play commie kickball and am a big fan. I'm very excited about the Fire signing Blanco.

Anyway, I think such a system would be a huge service to the community. Mark, Frank, Naftali, how about it?

Dave, I'd be totally for a peer review system like that. I, too, play commie kickball and am a big fan. I'm very excited about the Fire signing Blanco.

Anyway, I think such a system would be a huge service to the community. Mark, Frank, Naftali, how about it?

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 16, 2007 6:42:10 PM

Geez... all this time I thought you were an evil fascist righty... and I've probably high-fived you in Bridgeview before.

This shakes my belief system to the core.

Doug,

The loony lefties might night have the market cornered in name calling, but they are the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

As far as "jay Walking" on campus, that is a hoot. Everytime I see that, I think of our lovely public education system

Tony,

As far as that Johns Hopkins study goes, it make the statistical research on Global Waming look air tight. See Below.

An article in the Wall Street Journal by Steven Moore, who worked as a pollster for the coalition authorities in Iraq, attacked the sampling: "The key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report... the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points."

And on 20 October, Science Magazine reported the queries of researchers at Oxford and Royal Holloway universities. One of them, Sean Gourley of the Physics department at Oxford, said their studies "have found fundamental flaws [in the Lancet report] that lead to an over-estimation of the number of deaths. "

One aspect they questioned was the selection of sample households chosen for interviews. There could be "main street bias", they said, in that households on main streets were more likely to suffer casualties from car bombings. They want an inquiry into the methodology. "It's almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," said Neil Johnson of Oxford.

Oh well so why don't we just chalk this all down,
to the dumbing down of America,as the direct result of Liar in Chief Illiterate Foul Up George
W Bush and his "Leave No Child Behind Education
Programs" and the fact that our News Anchors and
Newsreporters are getting just as dumb as the
public,when you look at their poor grammar?

"...it would be nice to have some sort of peer-reviewed ranking system for the regulars [to] weed out the schmucks from the credible.
Posted by: dave | Apr 16, 2007 5:01:36 PM

Dave, I'd be totally for a peer review system like that...

Mark, Frank, Naftali, how about it?
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 16, 2007 6:42:10 PM

dave, Jeff,

Sounds great, but there are problems. One (mentioned earlier) would be Chicago style ballot stuffing. Another, no less problematic, is that I suspect that the moderators actually like the screamers. The traffic would go WAY down if they were weeded out.

Nevertheless, peer review has my vote. The quality of conversation here has been going steadily downward for at least half a year now.

PS: I forgive you guys for being soccer fans.

I see my questions havn't been answered. Am I suppose to be shocked, or are the questions just too difficult for conservatives to answer?

Any conservative willing to answer at least one of my previous quotes, I'll admit I'm a "loony leftie" & convert.

Who's going to take-up the challenge? The night is still young.

What I can't take is other people telling me what's going on inside my head and putting words into my mouth. That's hitting below the belt and it's a testament to their devotion to sleaze that they stand up and defend it right here.
me call,

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 16, 2007 3:32:26 PM

Thus proving my point-You can dish it out but can't take it. You don't know what's going on in anyone else's head either.

JuanLeo T and Jeffy would go down in flames,sounds good to me.

Leo T... The ballot stuffing problem can be diminished by making those involved have user accounts (one account per email address). Yes, it's possible for a troll to set up many accounts under many different email addresses and then flood someone with negative rep, but it is prohibitively tedious to do so enough to do damage to someone's rep if enough people use the system (even for the Mom's-basement-dwelling types).

It works surprisingly well at BigSoccer, and there is no lack of trolls and haters on that site as well. You'd be surprised how many people take soccer as serious or even more serious than politics... even in this country.

If any mods are interested in checking such a system out, I'd recommend going to www.bigsoccer.com and creating an account to spec the system.

Oh... and one more thing Leo... the moderators don't have to worry about the screamers not being here... the system I'm proposing doesn't restrict the screamers from posting in any way. It's not as if you get banned for having a poor peer reputation. And trust me, a bad rep doesn't deter the trolls (if anything, it aggravates them into becoming more shrill). The system just makes it easier for everyone else to point and laugh at someone like John D when he says something as precious as "When it comes to debating points, I have never lost a debate with a Loony Lefter. Talk about easy prey.".

Why can't we both agree that Fox News and CNN news are both guilt of irresponsible reporting? Why can't we both agree that people who are more interested in national issues are more likely to seek out shows such as the Daily Show/Colbert Report/O'Reilly?

I guess trying to find a compromise would just get in the way of the good ole' conservative/liberal mud fight.

Anyone wishing to debate my contention that debating the loony left is easy prey, please refer to posts by John E "Lil' Jeany Dee,I laughed when you called us "easy prey".

Or this bit of nonsense: Zee Jean Dee bosts uuder one naeem, but uses multeeball bursonalitees. Eez veery efficieent.

Zee Trapper
Posted by: ZeeFrenchTrapper | Apr 16, 2007 5:01:41 PM

Or, how about this bit of nonsense?
"24/7 news doesn't make us any smarter"

SHHHHHH!!!!! CLTV might hear that!
Posted by: Chimpy McFlightsuit | Apr 16, 2007 5:54:52 PM

And how much do any of you want to bet all three are from "John E"??

Really, with posts like those just highlighted, and I easily could find more, is there any doubt the LOONY LEFT is capable of any type of reasoned debate, thought, sense?

Like I said, easy prey.

Dave,

Yeah you're right, the Screamers wouldn't be embarrassed into leaving, but it could be easier for normal people to slap them around... and we all know that they need it.

and before C.Morris weighs-in saying that he likes the rough-and-tumble and that's what blogging is all about --

I think we all agree with you. However there's a big difference between tough debate and sharp wit on the one hand, and empty-headed pointless malice on the other.

I think most of us normals agree that malice solely for the sake of malice is useless. So a system that makes it easier to marginalize the trolls (but still letting them blather) would be a public service.

What say you, Swamp moderators?

Hey, the rough and tumble is what blogging is all about!!

(Just fulfilling your prophesy. LT)

C.M.,

But what do you think of dave's proposal?

Last night I attempted to be one of those well informed conservatives so I checked out Rush Limbaugh’s website.

Hhmmm… Still nothing mentioned about the troop extensions after a couple days, so I guess it really wasn’t news to begin with. I’m starting to see the liberal bias that goes on out there.

Nothing on the shootings at Virginia Tech. Must be an oversight. Right??

Here’s something enlightening in one of those life changing ways. Doing cardio can actually kill you, & it doesn’t help you loose weight! Wow! I can’t believe all this working out & staying in shape was such a waste of time. Starting today, I won’t care if I gain too much weight, have elevated cholesterol, & not be able to play with the kids because I’ll be exhausted too quickly.

I’m seeing the light. Being conservative really is the way to go. Can’t wait to get some more pearls of wisdom.

A challenge was made to have less invective in posts a while back and I bit, at least when it comes to JohnD. He responded positively to my efforts. I don't agree with John 98% of the time but I do enjoy him not calling me names.

I will try to see someone's side of an issue or at least respect where they are coming from when there is no name calling. One poster that comes to mind is Terry. We probably have few points in common and yet he generally responds with his side of the story with his facts in tow and leaves the name calling out of it. I respect his posts even when I can't always agree with him. C. Morris also can disagree without being to disagreeable. Of course I am often in agreement with him.

Sorry, Dave. Someone who thinks the rest of us are idiots and lets us know it repeatedly gets no break from me. By the way, many of my posts don't make it on the screen.

Leo,

There is already a member sign in system in place for the Trib.
It could be extended to this blog.

However, requiring a sign in would eliminate the all the fun of say, 'Warner Hits Pace', where a hot link from KooKooville brought in all sorts of fun. It's still twitching, I think.

Someone suggested a poll feature. I like this idea better.

I think a Swamp poll feature is a great idea, like the ones you see on the AOL front page and other places. They are not scientific, but many garner thousands of responses, so at some point the validity goes up. An internal Swamp poll would be a bit more exclusive, but a whole lotta fun, I would think.

Imagine;

'John D said;
John E said;
Who is correct??'

Catherine, when have I attempted to put words into your mouth or implied you said something you never once wrote or referred to in any post? I'll await your reply.

Dave's right, the bigsoccer.com site has a huge community and relatively few trolls. Such a system would be a great service to this community.

I play on Saturdays with Sportsmonster. I've probably seen you in Bridgeview, too.

Catherine, when have I attempted to put words into your mouth or implied you said something you never once wrote or referred to in any post? I'll await your reply.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 17, 2007 9:40:23 AM

I can barely remember where I've posted myself half the time. This isn't life or death to me. But since I don't watch the All about Jeff Show all that much nor do I care to watch it, I can't really respond to your question. Maybe never, maybe ten times. Who knows? Your inability to let this lie makes me say again-you can dish it out but you can't take it. It's a shame too, because you aren't totally a one trick pony like Paulo.

So Jeff, what should I do? According to Rush Limbaugh’s website last night, cardio can kill you. I want to follow this enlightened conservative advise & become an overweigh, cigar smoking, out-of-shape kind of guy. But I’m torn between following this enlightened conservative path & continuing being a soccer troll at Sportsmonster.

What do you recommend?

Dave, Jeff, Leo (others?),

While theoretically "weeding out" the "Screamers" (thanks for the term, Leo), wouldn't that also censor them? I don't enjoy putting up with the the name-calling, the ranting or the general nasty-making any more than anyone else does (from either side), but I'd rather go through a hundred of them than see somebody censored because people don't like what they have to say. I'm thinking it's enough that the Tribune moderators cull out profanity, attacks, and irrelevancies without adding to the filter.

It's one thing to get impatient with somebody and tell them they should take a long walk off a short pier, but entirely another to actually take away their right to speak up, as it were.

At least that's my world.

John, I hope you're still checking,

First of all we're talking about "censure" not "censoring".

Secondly the Swamp moderators are failing miserably culling attacks and irrelevancies. They do catch the potty words, as if anybody really cares about that.

Not to worry, tho. This idea is DOA.

Thank you Catherine

You're welcome, Terry.