Comments on: Good News, Bad News http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/ Rory O'Connor's blog Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:43:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Sotally Tober http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71438 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:41:51 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71438 Typical rightwing lunatics using blatant lies thinking it'll give them any credence to the subject. Get a grip man! YOU are so out of touch with reality it's scary. You must be the one Bush and McCain were talking about when they mentioned "psychological." Typical rightwing lunatics using blatant lies thinking it’ll give them any credence to the subject. Get a grip man! YOU are so out of touch with reality it’s scary. You must be the one Bush and McCain were talking about when they mentioned “psychological.”

]]> by: Tho Tan Tran http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71415 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:14:56 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71415 I agree with the New Yorker magazine. That's the wake up call for the American people before it's too late. Barack Houssein Obama is not an African-American, but an Islam Black. The Muslim transplanted him like a virus to our government as VC did it during Vietnam war that could not be detected even CIA. So, we better prevent than cure the problem in the future. Besides, it's our First Amendment rights that's needed to be protected. I agree with the New Yorker magazine. That’s the wake up call for the American people before it’s too late. Barack Houssein Obama is not an African-American, but an Islam Black. The Muslim transplanted him like a virus to our government as VC did it during Vietnam war that could not be detected even CIA. So, we better prevent than cure the problem in the future. Besides, it’s our First Amendment rights that’s needed to be protected.

]]> by: Rory http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71414 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:23:12 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71414 RIGHT, there you go, completely twist the issue and spin the discussion wildly into some crazy area... Who the heck ever said anything about Laws to Regulate cartoons or magazine covers? Who the heck is trying to deny the First Amendment rights of anyone in this matter? No one, nobody is doing or suggesting such nonsense: the New Yorker magazine has it's opinions and First Amendment rights, and so does everyone else... and that's exactly what people have been expressing, when they've expressed criticism of the New Yorker cartoon. BUT SURE, twist the argument into something strange and non-existent, twist it and spin it into an argument you can't possibly lose... Make it out as though someone somewhere were trying to enact a Law against cartoons, or against the New Yorker... Make it out as though someone somewhere was trying to deny First Amendment rights to the New Yorker or anybody else. That's a lie: no one nowhere is doing any such thing. RIGHT, there you go, completely twist the issue and spin the discussion wildly into some crazy area…

Who the heck ever said anything about Laws to Regulate cartoons or magazine covers?

Who the heck is trying to deny the First Amendment rights of anyone in this matter?

No one, nobody is doing or suggesting such nonsense: the New Yorker magazine has it’s opinions and First Amendment rights, and so does everyone else… and that’s exactly what people have been expressing, when they’ve expressed criticism of the New Yorker cartoon.

BUT SURE, twist the argument into something strange and non-existent, twist it and spin it into an argument you can’t possibly lose…

Make it out as though someone somewhere were trying to enact a Law against cartoons, or against the New Yorker…

Make it out as though someone somewhere was trying to deny First Amendment rights to the New Yorker or anybody else.

That’s a lie: no one nowhere is doing any such thing.

]]> by: Robert M. Cerello http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71413 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:07:43 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71413 It is already clear to the dullest mind, product of public schools, that n"on-fictional information must be regulated somehow. But how?. Markets, of information as of anything else, I suggest can only be operated where categorizing definitions--a science that separates realistic from unreal behaviors, within that sphere--applies equally to everyone's actions, in order to forbid crimes and toallow the participant access to rights after he/she has satisfied fundamental regulations of "how to proceed". In other wrds, participatiuon in non-fictional speech, publishing, commentary, eytc. is a right--but it must be claimed under regulations whereby one safeguards the rights of others in a non-negligent fashion. Thus, the three fundamental distinctions here shou;ld be clear: one cannot regulate content of freedom of speech practiced by non-criminal, non-collectivists. What one can and I assert must govern, confine within rational limits, is the form by which one claims levels of non-fictional rights hrough--what needs to be included and what exluded and the nature and limits of the rights claimed thereby. This means non-fiction must be confined I suggest by three basic rules: 1. Attested facts can be claimed as "facts"; myths cannot be retailed as anything by unspported beliefs, labeled as "in my opinion", "I feel", "some claim", "these persons suggest", etc. 2. Standards-based evaluations, achieved by defining a scienific definition of good (in full form) and then applying its standard of measurement to an individual case or to cases must be differentiated from attitudes--from discontexted positive or negative claims made by anyone upon no reality basis necessarily at all. The former scientific procedure then once suplied gains the speaker accesss to value terms--good, bad, excellent, terrible, great, awful, valuable, harmful to be applid to the subject under discussion; failure to provide such a full categorizing standard of value leaves one with opinion level words only, thisrestriction to be enforced by moderators or editors--"I like", "I dislike", "prefer", "I don't prefer", "I find better or worse", "I approve or disapprove of"--but denies the user of such hazy stuff access to the words think, know, prove, understand, evaluate, argue, have proven, and the terms stated above. 3. A full scientific proof, a categorizing definition drawn upon 5--6 prioritized internal definitions of the essentialsof of how anything works to be normatively what it is in reality--a full definition of science--is required.... Anything else as "information" refers to unsupported, incomplete or unprovable beliefs, and must be relegated to such terms as "I believe", "in my opinion", "I feel", "I suggest"--but deny the user of such bases the words prove, think, assert, profess, by this theory it is true, etc., etc. This leaves generic headlines, easily enforceable, the supplying a title as condign context for any images, identifying the difference between real versus manufactured footage, distinction between documentary information and any other sort, fitionalized-dramatized versus true biography, fiction versus non-fictiion, and the difference between visual and audial space-time informations, their necessary labeling and conduct. But with these threedefinitions firmly in place in our formerly nonexistent Constitutional approach to information, true marketplaces can be set up and operated--by those following rules and watching out for their own and others' rights; elections become possible again by applying equal treatment to all candidates; critics can be distinguished from opinion mongers and hack career assassins, the stars in TV Guide's editors savagee approach disappear, the Leonard Maltins of the world have to watch the film themselves and define what a fictional film is before employing value terms; and actors will no longer talk about their old pal Sadie as"a good, great, excellent actress" etc. without reference to something other than "we made a film togther and I liked her." Oh, and by the way, John Kerry becomes a tested military leader, and John McCain is a guy who served honorably in the military and got shot down, nothing else, Barack Obama lacks specific military experience, and George W, Bush becomes someone served in the military in peacetime and refused for suspicious reasons to pilot an aircraft in Vietnam and was excused under still-unexplained circumstances from his former commitment to the military. No longer will "Obama Hope for Victtory in West Virginia" while his oppponents get no mention; and no longer will four or six newstwisters of zero philosophic training and experience sit around for an hour telling us what the candidate justwas permitted to say for ten minutes. Opinion polls will be regulated; the Republic can be restored--and every man's reputation will be safe from flannelmouthed boobies, slanderers, attackers with a shadow agenda and public-corporate. character assassins.That's what regulations do for anyone--they provide the rules of the game according to which facts can be asserted, value can prove itself, the normative prosper and the sub-normative, failed, non-scientists and and criminal must be revealed and shown the exit from the stage of world affairs. It is already clear to the dullest mind, product of public schools, that n”on-fictional information must be regulated somehow. But how?. Markets, of information as of anything else, I suggest can only be operated where categorizing definitions–a science that separates realistic from unreal behaviors, within that sphere–applies equally to everyone’s actions, in order to forbid crimes and toallow the participant access to rights after he/she has satisfied fundamental regulations of “how to proceed”. In other wrds, participatiuon in non-fictional speech, publishing, commentary, eytc. is a right–but it must be claimed under regulations whereby one safeguards the rights of others in a non-negligent fashion.
Thus, the three fundamental distinctions here shou;ld be clear: one cannot regulate content of freedom of speech practiced by non-criminal, non-collectivists. What one can and I assert must govern, confine within rational limits, is the form by which one claims levels of non-fictional rights hrough–what needs to be included and what exluded and the nature and limits of the rights claimed thereby.
This means non-fiction must be confined I suggest by three basic rules:
1. Attested facts can be claimed as “facts”; myths cannot be retailed as anything by unspported beliefs, labeled as “in my opinion”, “I feel”, “some claim”, “these persons suggest”, etc.
2. Standards-based evaluations, achieved by defining a scienific definition of good (in full form) and then applying its standard of measurement to an individual case or to cases
must be differentiated from attitudes–from discontexted positive or negative claims made by anyone upon no reality basis necessarily at all. The former scientific procedure then once suplied gains the speaker accesss to value terms–good, bad, excellent, terrible, great, awful, valuable, harmful to be applid to the subject under discussion; failure to provide such a full categorizing standard of value leaves one with opinion level words only, thisrestriction to be enforced by moderators or editors–”I like”, “I dislike”, “prefer”, “I don’t prefer”, “I find better or worse”, “I approve or disapprove of”–but denies the user of such hazy stuff access to the words think, know, prove, understand, evaluate, argue, have proven, and the terms stated above.
3. A full scientific proof, a categorizing definition drawn upon 5–6 prioritized internal definitions of the essentialsof of how anything works to be normatively what it is in reality–a full definition of science–is required…. Anything else as “information” refers to unsupported, incomplete or unprovable beliefs, and must be relegated to such terms as “I believe”, “in my opinion”, “I feel”, “I suggest”–but deny the user of such bases the words prove, think, assert, profess, by this theory it is true, etc., etc.
This leaves generic headlines, easily enforceable, the supplying a title as condign context for any images, identifying the difference between real versus manufactured footage, distinction between documentary information and any other sort, fitionalized-dramatized versus true biography, fiction versus non-fictiion, and the difference between visual and audial space-time informations, their necessary labeling and conduct.
But with these threedefinitions firmly in place in our formerly nonexistent Constitutional approach to information, true marketplaces can be set up and operated–by those following rules and watching out for their own and others’ rights; elections become possible again by applying equal treatment to all candidates; critics can be distinguished from opinion mongers and hack career assassins, the stars in TV Guide’s editors savagee approach disappear, the Leonard Maltins of the world have to watch the film themselves and define what a fictional film is before employing value terms; and actors will no longer talk about their old pal Sadie as”a good, great, excellent actress” etc. without reference to something other than “we made a film togther and I liked her.” Oh, and by the way, John Kerry becomes a tested military leader, and John McCain is a guy who served honorably in the military and got shot down, nothing else, Barack Obama lacks specific military experience, and George W, Bush becomes someone served in the military in peacetime and refused for suspicious reasons to pilot an aircraft in Vietnam and was excused under still-unexplained circumstances from his former commitment to the military. No longer will “Obama Hope for Victtory in West Virginia” while his oppponents get no mention; and no longer will four
or six newstwisters of zero philosophic training and experience sit around for an hour telling us what the candidate justwas permitted to say for ten minutes. Opinion polls will be regulated; the Republic can be restored–and every man’s reputation will be safe from flannelmouthed boobies, slanderers, attackers with a shadow agenda and public-corporate. character assassins.That’s what regulations do for anyone–they provide the rules of the game according to which facts can be asserted, value can prove itself, the normative prosper and the sub-normative, failed, non-scientists and and criminal must be revealed and shown the exit from the stage of world affairs.

]]> by: Dan Jacobson http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71407 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:48:36 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/07/15/good-news-bad-news-3/#comment-71407 The New Yorker is a magazine of limited interest to a limited number of people. Their cover amounts to the same strategies used by the likes of Don Imus and Howard Stern. The newsmedia are the ones who should be faulted for endlessly screaming about this. They are only giving millions of dollars in free advertising and plugs for The New Yorker. The New Yorker is a magazine of limited interest to a limited number of people. Their cover amounts to the same strategies used by the likes of Don Imus and Howard Stern. The newsmedia are the ones who should be faulted for endlessly screaming about this. They are only giving millions of dollars in free advertising and plugs for The New Yorker.

]]>