Same facts = completely opposite interpretations
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/january-6-committee-hearing-watch-live-2022-06-09/
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold the first of at least six public hearings in a rare prime-time session Thursday evening to show the American public what they have learned so far about the riot and former President Donald Trump's role.
The committee chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said last week that lawmakers plan to use a "combination of witnesses, exhibits, things that we have through the tens of thousands of exhibits we've [...] looked at, as well as the hundreds of witnesses we deposed or just talked to in general."
CBS News will broadcast the hearing as a Special Report on all CBS stations starting at 8 p.m. ET, anchored by "CBS Evening News" anchor Norah O'Donnell. She will be joined by CBS News chief political analyst John Dickerson; chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa; chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes; chief national affairs and justice correspondent Jeff Pegues; and congressional correspondents Nikole Killion and Scott MacFarlane.
Ahead of a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles on Thursday, Mr. Biden noted that some Americans will be hearing details of the Jan. 6 attack for the first time.
For those so opposed to censorship.........we're getting the biggest example of a major news outlet censoring these hearings so far.......Fox.
Every major network is broadcasting them live with full screen, full audio of the entire content but not Fox.
Instead, Fox is showing the video of the hearings in a portion of the screen with no audio for their viewers to hear.
Tucker and other guests are on a big portion of the screen telling viewers why they shouldn't believe whatever it is that Fox viewers are not even being allowed to hear. Same thing for the last 45 minutes.
This is most blatant example of propaganda related to a big news event by a news organization that I can remember in history.
Maybe somebody else remembers a bigger one. Anybody?
This is something that I would think happens in China or Russia but have never seen it like this in the US.
Oh, wait. Fox does this all the time with all their manufactured false narratives and contrived conspiracy theories but it's never been this blatant/obvious during a live event that they don't want their viewers to hear.
Let me put it bluntly.
If you've been watching Fox tonight, you have no idea what's being said or what the evidence really is. You are only getting what Fox is telling you to think and since I've been listening to the actual testimony by flipping to non Fox stations, there are extremely credible sources, like Bill Barr testifying and its extraordinarily powerful and damning.
Tucker is telling Fox viewers that the hearing is propaganda(his word several times) and Fox is telling them the truth.
Can't even let viewers decide for themselves, just trust Tucker on this. Wow!
I'm 66 years old and have been following the news closely since I was a kid. In fact, I worked for a CBS affiliate as the chief meteorologist at WEHT for 11 years. Never thought that I would see something this extreme in the USA from a major news organization.
I guess that means that if I don't report what is happening in these hearings/being said, our Fox viewers will have no idea of what is actually happening/being said.
Now that they are showing the video of the break into the Capital, Fox won't even show the video being played at the hearing and on every major news network. Instead, Fox is showing the people at the hearing watching the video that none of the Fox viewers get to see. WOW!
Hannity is doing the exact same thing.
Every major network is letting their viewers see and hear the entire hearings.
Fox is showing portions they taped earlier and are commenting on.
Or just the video of the hearing with no audio except with the Fox talking heads telling viewers what to think.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/january-6-committee-hearing-watch-live-2022-06-09/
Thompson played a video excerpt of former Attorney General Bill Barr's interview by the House Jan. 6 committee. Barr said he told Trump his claims of a stolen election were "bullsh**."
"I didn't want to be a part of it," he said.
Barr said he couldn't live in a world where an incumbent administration stays in power based on "unsupported by specific evidence that there was fraud in the election."
metmike: People that only watched Fox during the hearings, will be seeing most of this stuff above for the first time.
Of course this was planned for a long time:
https://mynorthwest.com/3508906/fox-news-aside-blanket-tv-coverage-set-for-jan-6-hearing/
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Television viewers will find nearly blanket prime-time coverage of a Congressional hearing Thursday on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, with the exception of Fox News Channel.
Fox News will cover the first in a series of House Select Committee public hearings as “news warrants,” it said in a release, otherwise leaving intact its regular lineup including “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"WHY DO YOU CENSOR US?" Ted Cruz SLAMS Twitter And Facebook During Election Suppression Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NhYTm2auyw
metmike: Betcha Ted Cruz doesn't utter a peep about Fox censoring the hearings on their station this evening.
Interesting that they went after YouTube for censorship a year ago but it's totally acceptable for THEM to censor things THEY don't want THEIR viewers to see and hear.
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2021/1/ohnson-discusses-youtube-censorship-on-fox-news-primetime
Had a chance to watch Hannity on the replay. Wow!
He describes a situation where Trump asked everybody to be peaceful by picking out one clip of him.
But Pelosi intentionally refused to send in the National Guard because she wanted the riots to happen and caused it. It's all Pelosi's fault. Wow!
They can't take the chance of viewers seeing and listening to the actual evidence, so they had to censor all of that tonight and replace it with the manufactured Fox version of what happened and tell their viewers that only Fox is telling the truth.
When one network chooses not to air something that is being covered by every other broadcaster in the country, that's hardly censorship. That's good business.
And as there was nothing new presented in this professionally produced bit of spam, I can see where some may find a better use of their time. You are aware that Nancy hired an ABC producer to manage the "production", right?. "Let's put the perfect spin on all of this, shall we?". Yes, legitimate investigations always rely on television producers to manage the presentation of evidence, right?
Had you honestly never before heard that Barr said "This is BS"? It's a fact he stated his opinion, and it's been known for well over a year.
As I've been saying, nothing new was "discovered". This is political theater with many willing participants.
Where this "investigation" has appeared to succeed, is that it seems to have convinced a segment of the population that merely questioning the vaildity of an election, looking into ways to legally overturn it, is a form of insurrection. But of course, only for pubs. Dems saying "Not My President" is still perfectly legal.
And no, I am not talking about the "rioters" who never had a chance to do much but destroy a bit of government property. They were wrong. I'm talking about people who really had doubts about the validity of the election. And whether or not you agree with them, trying to cast that as illegal activity is the only real threat to democracy we've seen in all of this.
Right Tim, they didn’t show the hearings because it’s good business.
one problem with that flawed thinking…..they did pretend to cover the hearings by having cameras there but they wouldn’t let their viewers hear what was being said.
instead Fox made up its own version with Fox people telling its viewing what to think.
lying and censorship will never be good business in my book!
Fox chose not to cover it. Well, that's not really true. They did give a portion of their display to an "inset" of the hearing so they didn't "pretend" the hearings were not taking place.
Were their viewers unaware of the hearing? Not if they were watching Fox.
Were they unable to chose to watch the coverage from another source if they so desired? I sincerely doubt it.
Did they think it would likely be political circus that presented absolutely nothing new, merely repackaging the same old information we've all known since shortly after Jan 6th? I bet most of them did, Are they right? I think so.
But even if they actively avoid hearing anything about the hearing, they can't pick up the paper, turn on the TV or log into the internet without seeing lots of coverage. And they will not see anything they have not seen before, many times for many months.
In any event, Fox chosing not to cover something is not censorship. We have networks chosing not to cover things every day, every hour. It may be called bias. It may even be called prejudice. But it in no way meets the definition of censorship. Not when the information has been/is/and will be readily available from scads of sources on every form of media.
They simply did not give it the emphasis you think they should have
wow, chief of staff of dod sure gives a different set of facts than MM and he was there, every minute of every meeting including with Pelosi and capitol police and then mayor. He has 5 first witnesses and MM has cnn and schmer, Pelosi, etc. All the witnesses say the same about the security and how Pelosi did not want the "opitics" of the guard there. But Just trust MM because he was not there and gets his info from cnn. Right. The breaking news about Barr was breathless also...and a new headline for cnn and MM apparently. Patel had to explain the after action report the above mentioned commys and force them to include it....as in many other convenient facts left on the floor. And the brave liar Liz Cheney herself reading a several sentence post by Trump only to somehow skip the part where he says to stay calm and peaceful. Pretty much what most thinking people knew what would happen, a complete sham. And when are they going to present that brave guard who shot the un armed x-service women, is that today? OHHH, probably will not
Regardless of how you want to frame it.
Last night, Fox censored ALL THE LIVE audio and then all the video that showed the action on Jan 6th from the hearing and instead, during the hearing that all other networks carried LIVE, Fox told their viewers what they wanted them to think.
They recorded the live hearing, then later on played only selected portions of the recording that they wanted their viewers to see while they told viewers how to interpret those selected clips.
I listened to the hearings with my ears LIVE.
Then I got to listen to what Fox was saying when they played the recording of their shows for the 2nd time after midnight.
It was like 2 completely different events. I got to see what really happened, as it was occurring LIVE and as most people did and I got to see what Fox said happened as Fox viewers saw. Anybody watching Fox last night has no idea what actually occurred at the LIVE hearings.
How could they?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85517
By TimNew - June 10, 2022, 2:38 a.m
"When one network chooses not to air something that is being covered by every other broadcaster in the country, that's hardly censorship. That's good business."
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76168/#76309
By TimNew - Oct. 17, 2021, 11:55 a.m.
Our differences are not tiny, MM.
"You support "some" censorship. Some of it is good. Do you deny saying that? How do you define "good" censorship? What are the limits? When does censorship become bad? Who gets to decide?
I think there is no such thing as "good" censorship. As the saying goes, the truth does not mind being challenged, but lies do."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalize for various reasons
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-anchor-bret-baier-161511931.html
"That’s notable since flagship station Fox News took enormous heat for counter-programming with a commercial-free two hours featuring regular hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity riffling through guests to trash the proceedings as they happened."
“The focus seems to be the target of President Donald Trump, and he looks really bad in this presentation,” Baier said. “He’s just watching the TVs and kind of applauding what’s happening. And then Liz Cheney says that he says ‘Maybe Mike Pence deserves to be hung.'”
Behind the production was a message: Trump fed the lie that the election was stolen, stoked anger among his supporters and then did nothing as they stormed the Capitol.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-hearing-committee-takeaways-day-one-rcna32656
"WASHINGTON — One person more than any other set in motion the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the committee investigating the riot argued at its first public hearing Thursday.
And that person is Donald Trump.
He sparked the riot at the Capitol and nearly shredded American democracy in pursuit of power, the House Jan. 6 committee contended in what will serve as the opening argument in a weekslong effort to make a case to the public.
Members of the committee set out to explain a multilayered scheme to overturn the 2020 election and nullify millions of votes cast for Joe Biden.
The committee rolled out never-before-seen video of interviews with Trump’s inner circle and graphic images of the siege at the Capitol."
But behind all the production was a recurring message: Trump fed the lie that the election was stolen, stoked anger among his supporters who stormed the Capitol and then did nothing when lawmakers, aides and family members implored him to stop the attack."
I'm really tired of these circular debates. I'll just say MM takes a lot of poetic lisense in his definitions of censorship.
I'll also note that he glossed over the vast majority of the points I made in this discussion.
By his current definition of censorship.... Well, need I say more.
I guess not :-)
Poetic license?
Tim,
I described exactly what happened last night. 100% factual.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85522
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poetic-license
license or liberty taken by a poet, prose writer, or other artist in deviating from rule, conventional form, logic, or fact, in order to produce a desired effect.
The violence on Jan 6 was condemnable by the mob, but even had there been no violence...
The planning of this coup against our democracy is horrifying. Those are the people I'd like to see justice visited upon.
Quote of the day:
“Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”
- Liz Cheney
Mike Pence salvaged his honor on Jan 6th.
Thanks much joj!
You might note that so far, I've only reported what Fox did compared to other news organizations and passed on articles from different news organizations and responded to posts here confronting/disagreeing with my facts...........but have yet to utter one word of my own personal opinion about Trump's involvement.
Anybody hanging around here the last 18 months already knows what my opinion is about that, crystal clear.
For me, this thread is NOT about my personal opinion(which I'm not afraid to express). It's about the objective observations, authentic evidence and reporting the facts.
However, I very much encourage others to express their opinions, whether or not they include actual facts. That's what we are here for!!!
As always, my favorite posts by far, are those that disagree with me.
I sincerely encourage posters to do that here as much as possible.
It's in that environment where the most opportunity/best chance of learning takes place if one or both parties is open minded and really wants to learn!
Echo chambers are places that people go to in order to listen/read from other birds of a feather that repeat things that they already think that they know.
Echo chambers, by design feature minimal learning about the other half of the political world which they already don't understand very well.
Fox, in this thread with their presentation of manufactured facts and censoring the LIVE hearing yesterday(to keep their viewers from learning things that disagree with Fox rhetoric and Fox conspiracy theories) and the responses by its defenders demonstrated one of the biggest quintessential examples of that principle that I remember in my life.
ok JOJ exactly who are you talking to. As far as I remember the conservatives were the first and loudest to condemn any unlawful acts on the 6th. Me, Tim, and others were there early and often. We should not have to correct the record or top more lib revisionist history. Now as to the current sham investigation we have many problems and have stated them as well.
Mcfarm,
I must have missed the post where you condemned the efforts of Trump and his minions to overthrow the legitimate election of Joe Biden, even after he lost 60 court cases challenging the election results. The only president in our nations history to not honor the peaceful transition of power. George Washington is rolling over in his grave.
And as for those who attempt to draw some equivalencies with Democrats who didn't accept the 2016 results, just STOP. H Clinton conceded on election night.
Trump didn't accept the results when they were tallied.
He didn't accept the results when his AG declared the election legit.
He didn't accept them when 60 judges through out his baseless claims of fraud.
He doesn't accept them today.
I will concede all these points.
Censorship includes one network NOT placing enough emphasis on readily available information for one evening. Information that HAS been readily available for over a year in a multitude of forms.
Lot's and lots of new information was presented in the hollywood production staged by Nancy P. Et.Al. the other night and not making it the front and center of every concievable form of media/communicatrion is indeed censorship.
And yes, the last presidential election was beyond questionable, the most secure election in the history of the universe. Questioning it, discussing legal means of overturning it, even discussinfg assorted evidence that call the results into question is a form of sedition/insurrection and is deserving of the most severe penalties. It's exactly the same thing as storming the capitol!! Unless of course, it's done by democrats. Democrats can use federal agencies to spy on political opposition in an attempt to sway an election. Once that fails, they can continue the charade in an attempt to overturn the election, and that's all fine and legal. But republicans even questioning the results of an election is a major threat to democracy!!!!
Thanks for clearing this all up for me guys. I bow to your obviously superior knowledge and intellect. :-)
I GOT A BIG KICK OUTTA THIS THREAD. LOLOLOL
EVERY NEWS STATION SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO REPORT THE SAME NEWS, USING THE EXACT SAME TRANSCRIPT. THAT WAY THERE WOULD BE NO BIAS. HAHAHAHAAHA
I WOULD BE THE ACTING TRUTH COP. ;)
HI, TIM, MCFARM & MIKE
ULTRA MAGA, HERE.
Thanks 12345!
Thats the rational for Fox’s manufactured facts.
They are really just giving viewers an alternative version.
But they were intentionally NOT doing that At all…..just the opposite.
They we’re giving their viewers NO ALTERNATIVE by NOT showing the other side and telling them a made up version.
Its not a true alternative if there’s only 1 choice.
If you go to the store and that grocery store has only 1 kind of cereal on the shelf that is some obscure brand they make that no other grocery store chains carry, and nothing else, while the other stores have dozens of brands….is that really an alternative.
when shopping in theor store you have no alternatives to what they determine is your 1 choice.
to make this an accurate analogy, that one obscure brand would be FAKE cereal.
Like potato chips, the same as those they sell in the snacks isle but in a cereal box that they call “their alternative cereal”.
But even that would miss the mark because those potato chips would still be food and have calories/nutritional value.
the true analogy would be for them to be selling a box of contaminated food because that’s what the alternative facts from Fox were doing during this hearing.
Distorted Facts contaminated by lies. I watched most of the hearings, then most of Fox on their replay 5 hours later.
Almost everybody watched one or the other And only knows what their source showed. This is why I wanted to share my observations From watching both.
"Questioning it, discussing legal means of overturning it, even discussinfg assorted evidence that call the results into question is a form of sedition/insurrection and is deserving of the most severe penalties."
You keep glossing over the Coup plans AFTER all legal means were exhausted Tim. (not surprising)
Legal avenues are legitimate, although Trump and co legal appeals were laughable.
What about the plan to throw out the electors AFTER legal means failed Tim? (never attempted in the history of our Republic). Can you condemn THAT?
.... still waiting.
TIM... WHO WAS IT, WHILE ON HIS CAMPAIGN FOR POTUS IN 2020, THAT TOLD HIS MASSIVE "RALLY CROWD OF 6 PEOPLE": "I DON'T NEED YOUR VOTE!" LOLOLOL
I DON'T WONDER WHY HE SAID THAT. HE MESSED UP & BLURTED OUT THE TRUTH.... IMO, OF COURSE.
ULTRA MAGA, HERE
Coup plans after legal means we're exhausted? I missed that episode.
TIA for filling me in
"Coup plans after legal means we're exhausted? I missed that episode."
Tim,
The only way that could be is if you are getting all your episodes from Fox and far right sites and believing their big fat conspiracy theories related to this(while ignoring the proven truths from other sources). And also forgetting dozens of conversations here because that point has been beaten like a dead horse.
You actually could have found this yourself without much effort..........If you really wanted to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2020/election-integrity/
mikelindells election tape
11 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Feb. 6, 2021, 8:58 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/65299/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/72115/
By metmike - March 17, 2021, 1:07 p.m.
Wonderful discussion here:
The truth about voter fraud:
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maricopa audit
Started by wglassfo - July 7, 2021, 9:30 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/72061/
Arizona recount
5 responses |
Started by metmike - June 3, 2021, 5:34 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70449/
State election officials try to stop election audits
6 responses |
Started by wglassfo - May 26, 2021, 4:22 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70014/
Arizona Election audit. My favorite story so far.
22 responses |
Started by TimNew - May 21, 2021, 7:30 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69771/
Snake Oil Salesman Mike Lindell
Started by metmike - May 13, 2021, 12:16 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69324/
mikelindells election tape
11 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Feb. 6, 2021, 8:58 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/65299/
Election Fraud in Ga
29 responses |
Started by TimNew - Dec. 5, 2020, 5:14 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62268/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62268/#62292
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62268/#62317
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62268/#62385
oh boy! more vote-switching "evidence"
9 responses |
Started by GunterK - Jan. 4, 2021, 10:02 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/63755/
Umm, we have a major problem here: "Trump Pressured GA Secretary of State to 'Find' Votes"
15 responses |
Started by WxFollower - Jan. 3, 2021, 8:28 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/63694/
Chart reading and the Election line chart for Wisconsin/Michigan
16 responses |
Started by rockitck - Dec. 27, 2020, 11:23 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/63393/
is this where we have come to as a country?
17 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Dec. 19, 2020, 8:07 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/63002/
forensic analysis of Dominiion software
4 responses |
Started by GunterK - Dec. 15, 2020, 11:02 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62756/
Wisconsin case: Trump side didn't think it was worth calling even a single witness.
2 responses |
Started by WxFollower - Dec. 14, 2020, 3:21 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62730/
Sedition Defined
14 responses |
Started by joj - Dec. 12, 2020, 2:39 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62603/
latest on the election
8 responses |
Started by GunterK - Dec. 12, 2020, 7:46 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62634/
mail in ballots explained again
6 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Dec. 13, 2020, 7:40 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62662/
supremes turn back Texas challenge
15 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Dec. 11, 2020, 7:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62596/
Dominion spokesperson says....
7 responses |
Started by GunterK - Dec. 8, 2020, 8:29 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62426/
Hi Mike
26 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 8, 2020, 12:26 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62389/
Is there a there there
5 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 7, 2020, 4:40 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62373/
the election.... "death by a thousand cuts"
13 responses |
Started by GunterK - Dec. 3, 2020, 1:10 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62128/
more anomolies explained
6 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Dec. 6, 2020, 5:18 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62320/
Votes manipulated
22 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 1, 2020, 5:40 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62042/
send all others home and then count the fake ballots?
9 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Dec. 3, 2020, 10:35 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62206/
Greetings from Dominion.... all is well
4 responses |
Started by GunterK - Dec. 3, 2020, 11:16 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62142/
Lin Wood Sidney Powell
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 2, 2020, 11:17 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62122/
Fraud or perjury
6 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 2, 2020, 6:58 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62105/
dominion
5 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Dec. 2, 2020, 10:45 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62081/
Georgia GOP Election Official Speaks Out
Started by joj - Dec. 2, 2020, 5:13 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62096/
Chris Krebs Speaks Out
12 responses |
Started by joj - Dec. 1, 2020, 7:05 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62024/
Votes manipulated
22 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 1, 2020, 5:40 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62042/
reasons to wonder about the fruad
12 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Nov. 29, 2020, 8:42 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/61936/
Why this election was a fraud
24 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Nov. 26, 2020, 10:21 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/61803/
Re: Re: Capitol Insurrection News
By metmike - Jan. 27, 2021, 9:55 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/64730/#64841
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/72115/#72145
Arizona clown show continues
2 responses |
Started by metmike - Aug. 23, 2021, 12:36 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/74108/
Mike Lindell......a complete nut job!
14 responses |
Started by metmike - Aug. 6, 2021, 7:41 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73263/
Let it go and do yourself and your party a favor.
Who were the Jan 6th rioters?
Started by joj - Feb. 15, 2022, 9:35 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81839/
2000 Mules has been released
37 responses |
Started by TimNew - May 7, 2022, 6:32 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84141/
Trump Admits He Wanted Pence to Overturn the Election
22 responses |
Started by metmike - Jan. 31, 2022, 7:23 p.m
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81146/
Why Trump may choose to run third-party in 2024
Started by metmike - Jan. 29, 2022, 3:40 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81009/
Trump claims fraud in2020 election
8 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 27, 2022, 3:17 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80894/
Fake Trump electors scheme
Started by metmike - Jan. 26, 2022, 2:17 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80849/
Jan 6th in perspective
17 responses |
Started by TimNew - Jan. 7, 2022, 12:20 p.
Much of that evidence has been shown a dozen times here.........but it makes no difference.
We could show it 100 times.........maybe even 1,000 times but you've already decided not to believe most of it(the truth).
The only way that many on the right will believe it is if Fox stated it.
However, as I observed and reported on at the top, Fox is censoring the truth from it's viewers and making up false narratives and conspiracy theories for the Fox viewers to believe!
Captured brains
.... and STILL waiting
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2020/election-integrity/
This is the perfect example of what I find most facinating and outright scary about this whole thing. Thanks MM.
You feel that rejected legal challenges is an attempted coup? I won't even get into a debate on the many questionable rulings here.
You call opinions with which you disagree misinformation and disinformation and you call that a coup?
Even if that information is knowingly incorrect and dispensed anyway, that's still not a coup.
And if it is, then we have several coup attempts against Trump. Dozens, in fact. Al Gore's efforts in Fla back in 2000 certainly match this definition. For that matter, so do Bush's.
But the fact is, up until this massive marketing effort that has been pretty effective on some, the very worst label that could be attached to this is dirty politics, and even that would be debatable in many/most cases.
And that, my friend ,is the most serious attack on democracy in this whole thing.
Appears a lot agree with me. Or is this a form of censorsip too?
TV Ratings for Jan. 6 Hearing Are In: Viewers Changed the Channel in Droves (westernjournal.com)
Ratings for Thursday night’s prime-time hearing by the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion show Americans would have preferred some straight news.
In a review of ratings shared by Newsbusters, a clear pattern emerged.
Every one of the three major broadcast networks that aired the hearing ended up with a smaller audience than if they had simply provided their usual news content.
Mischaracterizing again Tim.
The exhausted legal challenges were very legal and followed very acceptable channels and nobody, one time suggested otherwise but with your typical straw man attack to make up a position that somebody you disagree with does NOT have so that you can attack that FAKE position.
Its happened so many dozens of times here and I keep busting you for it blatantly.
Do we have a comprehension issue here?
So now you‘re rationalizing the position involves ratings.
Good one. Let’s just use that to determine ethical standards and truth.
Thats exactly what’s wrong with the world.
TV stations that sensationalize and bs for ratings because that allows them to charge more for their advertising And increase profits/income.
Maybe you forget ……or it probably doesn’t matter that i was on TV for 11 years and know that industry defining unethical mindset as somebody that observed it from the inside.
You using ratings to define your ethics and the truth is getting pretty desperate.
Using the straw man fake argument too this morning.
Defending your sources censoring because they censored news that you wanted censored.
Hey Tim,
Why don’t we try something new in this thread…objective, open minded, honest discernment based on…..the facts/evidence and discarding the really bad assumptions from the get go that keep resulting in these flawed tactics to defend the indefensible…..that keeps resulting in no legit points from you but, instead my analysis of your flawed, dishonest tactics.
Why are you not seeing this thru the obvious authentic analysis of you doing it?
Your cognitive bias is digging your hole deeper and deeper and instead of learning something, you resort to a bigger bs shovel.
My position is to show the objective facts and to analyze how and why people and a tv station behave to convince themselves and their viewers of alternative, manufactured facts that contradict what really happened/the truth In order to maintain a false tenet as part of an engrained belief system that, by definition can almost never be wrong.
MM, you often use the term "objective" when describing your approach to debate, but that is simply not the case.
Also, if you are now saying the legal efforts are in fact legal and not a coup attempt, stop making them part of your argument. All I did was directly quote you above and now you claim I "mischaracterized".. Words literally escape me :-)
Also, FOX news not placing the emphasis on the political charade you would prefer does not in any way shape or form meet the definition of censorship. All the findings presented that, for whatever reason continue to keep you on the edge of your seat , are very old news and well established. Repackaging the same old nonsense does not change that.
And as I've said many times, ratings/polls etc. do not prove any points. I am just grateful that the dems obvious marketing scheme has failed for a majority of the population. They've gone to that well at least one time too many.
But go ahead and continue to focus too much of your attention on this obvious circus. You are aligning yourself with a shrinking group on the losing side.
For now ,at least, I am done with this debate. You are welcome to continue.
Thanks Tim!
It's a debate for you..........but that has long ago been settled by all the authentic facts here the past 19 months, which, even now are massively growing, note the latest post below.
For me, as I keep telling you:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85603
If my rain gauge shows 2.54 inch of water in it.......the debate about whether it rained or not is OVER.
You can try to convince yourself that I put water from the garden hose in the rain gauge, then when its proven that I didn't even have a garden hose, that the neighbor snuck to my yard and dumped water in it and come up with all sorts of false rationalizing.......to convince you and others that it really didn't rain.........but the debate was settled by the data/fact.
Then as time goes on, other people show similar amounts, the NWS reports the rain, the lawns green up and it all supports the same conclusion.......for me, the debate was already settled with the indisputable empirical data that I personally observed using the real world.
When you and others keep rejecting ALL the convincing, supporting lines of evidence, I just analyze your behavior.
Former Vice President Mike Pence’s attorney advised him on Jan. 5, 2021, that if he blocked the certification of electoral votes the following day as then-President Trump was urging him to do, he would likely face a loss in court or a “standoff” with Congress, according to a memo released for the first time on Saturday.
In the memo, which was obtained byPolitico, Pencelawyer Greg Jacobevaluated a proposal from Trump legal adviser John Eastmanon how Pence could refuse to count electoral votes from “any state for which an alternate but uncertified slate of electors has been submitted.”
“If the Vice President implemented Professor Eastman’s proposal, he would likely lose in court,” Jacob concluded. “In a best-case scenario in which the courts refused to get involved, the Vice President would likely find himself in an isolated standoff against both houses of Congress, as well as most or all of the applicable State legislatures, with no neutral arbiter available to break the impasse.”
Pence’s ultimate decision to go against Trump and continue as normal with the certification of votes led to tension between the two and made the then-vice president a target amid the violent insurrection on Jan. 6, where many Trump supporters expressed anger toward Pence over his refusal to overturn the election results.
Pence has since reiterated that he did not have the authority to do so. “President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election,” the former vice president said earlier this year. “The presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone. Frankly, there is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.
In the memo to Pence, Jacob noted that Eastman himself acknowledged his proposal would violate the 1887 Electoral Count Act and laid out multiple provisions of that law Pence would be breaking if he held up the certification as Eastman urged.
Jacob further noted that the proposal was “strongly in tension” with a federal district court ruling issued the previous day.
During the Capitol attack, Jacob emailed Eastman.
“And thanks to your bullshit, we are under siege,” he wrote.
By HOPE YEN 40 minutes ago
By Human Events Staff | December 16, 2021
The House January 6th Inquisition acknowledged Wednesday that it doctored a text message between former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan.
On Monday, Rep. Adam Schiff, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, showed a graphic during a hearing on communications between Meadows and others, including Jordan, the Epoch Times reports.
The message was presented as follows: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”
“You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows about,” Schiff said. “About a lawmaker suggesting that the former vice president simply throw out votes that he unilaterally deems unconstitutional in order to overturn a presidential election and subvert the will of the American people.”
The message, however, was actually a direct quote from former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz. The text included an attachment of Schmitz’s determination that Pence could object to electoral votes from states.
Additionally, the message was edited to cut off the rest of the sentence, which read: “in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.”
Cutworm::Why should a person believe Mr. Schiff after this and 3 years that there was solid proof of Russian collusion?
"Why should a person believe Mr. Schiff after this and 3 years that there was solid proof of Russian collusion?"
Hi cutworm,
Go ahead and pick out one guy with horrible credibility (which I would never believe either) and use that as a reason to rationalize the justification of completely ignoring a Mt. Everest sized quantity of authentic evidence that his side has.
The second hearing will take place on Monday, June 13 at 10:00 a.m. EDT. If you want to watch the Jan. 6 hearings on TV, they will air on all the major broadcast networks and cable news stations, with the exception of Fox News, which has been doing all it can to shield viewers from the truth of what happened last Jan. 6.
and if you watch please do not forget the reminders during the hearing on live tax payer funded public air waves the suggestion to donate large sums of money to the DNC....not there us anything wrong with that MM, well atleast not more wrong with that than say Jesse Jackson, chief huckster for libs, asking the same from the pulpit.
Against my better judgemnt.. but.. this is so fun..
It's a debate for you..........but that has long ago been settled by all the authentic facts here the past 19 months, which, even now are massively growing, note the latest post below.
Yeah, the science is settled. Where have I heard that before.
And do you really feel that Schiff is a unique example of the dems? He's typical, and epitomizes this circus you so enjoy.
But tell me MM.
Is your claim that Fox News censored the information from the hollywood production by Nancy P et. al an example of "Objective Facts" and "Authentic Data"?
I eagerly anticipate your response :-)
"Is your claim that Fox News censored the information from the hollywood production by Nancy P et. al an example of "Objective Facts" and "Authentic Data"?"
Obviously an objective fact Tim, based entirely on the observation of them doing it live, then again 5 hours later, so I could hear exactly what they stated because when they did it the first time, I wanted to actually hear what was stated at the hearings, which no Fox viewer was allowed to hear.
LOLOLOL
THIS IS KINDA, SORTA LIKE THE HUNTER LAPTOP SAGA.
WHAT FUNNNNNNNNNN
I BELIEVE WHAT I'VE SEEN & HEARD AS EVIDENCE THAT THERE ACTUALLY IS THE HUNTER EVIL LAP TOP.
MSM STILL DOESN'T BELIEVE IT... WONDER WHY?
ULTRA MAGA, HERE
"THIS IS KINDA, SORTA LIKE THE HUNTER LAPTOP SAGA"
Right 12345,
Just like a hot dog is the same as a cherry pie (-:
Or a thunderstorm is the same as a drought (-:
You guys obviously are incapable of discerning the truth based on objective facts and blindly follow what the far right sources, especially Fox tell you to believe/think.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/67714/
I strongly encourage therapy for you and others here afflicted with Fox on the Brain disease:
Use this to make yourself a better person-guaranteed
MM< do you read your articles ? it says ADAM Schiff, his picture, about him . Now you think that I am wrong?
"Go ahead and pick out one guy with horrible credibility (which I would never believe either) and use that as a reason to..."
You just did use the one guy with horrible credibility.
Further I am not justifying anything other than Mr. Schiff is not a creditable witness. Do not put words in my mouth.
"Do not put words in my mouth"
cutworm,
I was responding to YOUR words because YOU ASKED ME TOO!
"Why should a person believe Mr. Schiff after this and 3 years that there was solid proof of Russian collusion?"
If you didn't like the response, then don't ask the question.
You pointed out 1 person in an attempt to discredit the entire position of his group.
You also asked me if I read my articles.
Yes.
Again, you are trying to connect something that Adam Schiff did to discredit the position of many other people and the facts in the case...or you wouldn't keep bringing him up.....
And my response is still the same.
I'm NOT believing Adam Schiff, I'm believing the mountain of rock solid evidence.
So let me ask you a question then,
Do you believe the mountain of rock solid evidence?
MM... THIS IS REALLY FUNNNNNN. POLITICS & RELIGION ARE MY 2 FAVORITE TOPICS TO DISCUSS.
I GUESS THIS IS LIKE OLD BILL ONCE SAID ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD: "IS".
YOU ARE INCORRECT ABOUT MY MENTAL HEALTH, THO'. I DON'T WEAR ROSE COLORED GLASSES, BLINDER'S OR ANYTHING, THAT WOULD BLUR MY VIEW OF THE WORLD. I SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS ~ THERE IS STILL MORE GOOD, THAN BAD.
I DON'T NEED TO CLICK A LINK TO MAKE ME BETTER. I'M QUITE SATISFIED WITH BEING ME.
ULTRA MAGA, HERE
As for Liz she did not report truthfully as to the following;
At one point during the remarks — according to video footage by Bloomberg and a transcript by Factba.se, a database of Trump’s statements — he said:
After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down — anyone you want, but I think right here — we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated — lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.
She totally left off," I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.
12345,
I totally believe you that you don't want to change or improve yourself but regardless of that, I'm going to give you some helpful advice that's tailored just for you.
https://uxmovement.com/content/all-caps-hard-for-users-to-read/
"In emails(and forums), using all caps is a sign of bad manners. In design, using all caps is a sign of bad readability. Know when and when not to use all caps, and you’ll have a better chance of keeping your users and your job."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/us/all-caps-typography-history-tweets-trnd/index.html
https://www.writechoice.co.in/writechoice/all-caps-handwriting/
1. So was that supposed to be the answer to the question, cutworm?
"Do you believe the mountain of rock solid evidence?"
2. Searching for items that represent far less than .01 of the information to rationalize not believing the other .99+ amount of information that adds up to 1.0!
#2 was not part of the above question in #1 but is a continuing part of the analysis of what you and others here are actually doing.
EDIT removed by cutworm
cutworm,
I will assume then, since you've posted a couple of times since i asked the question that you either intend to NOT answer it or you're leaving it up to me to analyze what you said and figure it out........which I already did.............and don't blame me for putting words in your mouth because attempting to clearly communicate with you tonight, is like pulling teeth.
If you were offended by that word, I will gladly remove it for you but this conversation and your behavior isn't exactly deserving of praise.
Obviously an objective fact Tim, based entirely on the observation of them doing it live, then again 5 hours later, so I could hear exactly what they stated because when they did it the first time, I wanted to actually hear what was stated at the hearings, which no Fox viewer was allowed to hear.
So, you are clearly claiming that Fox Censorship is an objective fact, right? I don't want to be acccused, once again, of mischaracterizing.
You feel that Fox, not placing a lot of emphasis on claims and opinions already stated dozens if not hundreds of times over the last year or so, is censorsip.
Now can we agree that "censorship" means the suppression of information? Does that sound about right?
That being the case, can you really suppress information that is, and has been readily available for over a year?
You don't have to answer. Anyhting but the obvious answer will just employ more mental gymastics. But this is a great example of how you appear to muddy the line between fact and opinion.
Its a fact that Fox did not place the emphasis you thought they should have, on the old news. Its an opinion that this involved censorship, and an opinion that requires a great deal of poetic license. See the difference?
MET MIKE....I WAS WAITING FOR SOME SORT OF LIBERAL, CLOSED MINDED REMARK... ALWAYS ACCUSING W/O ACTUALLY KNOWING A THING ABOUT A PERSON. IN TODAY'S LIBERAL MIND, IT'S MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE "CANCEL CULTURE". (NO MENTION OF MY TYPING IN CAP'S, UNTIL YOU FIGURED OUT I WASN'T EVER GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU.) LOL
I DON'T WANT TO & WON'T CHANGE MYSELF TO "GET ALONG", NOR DO I NEED TO CLICK LINK'S TO READ THINGS THAT DON'T PERTAIN TO ME. I AM ONE OF THE MOST NON-ANGRY PEOPLE, YOU COULD EVER RUN INTO. OPINIONATED? YES... WHO ISN'T? IF/WHEN I FIND MY OPINION IS INCORRECT, I'LL BE THE 1ST ONE TO ADMIT IT...NO PROBLEM. TO GET INTO A "SPAT" ONLINE, IS ABOUT THE DUMBEST THING I SEE ONLINE. LOLOLOL I'VE ALWAYS LIVED MY LIFE AS SLOW & EASY & NON-CONFRONTATIONAL, AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. NOW PUSHING 73 YEARS OLD, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MOST PEOPLE THRIVE ON DISCORD.
I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE ABOUT MYSELF...NOTHING.
WHILE I'M HERE, I WILL ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE YOU, THO.
YOU COULD'VE JUST SIMPLY ASKED WHY I TYPE IN CAPS. I WOULD HAVE JUST SIMPLY ANSWERED WITH NOTHING BUT FACTS...INSTEAD OF A LONG, DRAWN OUT RESPONSE OF CIVILITY LESSON'S THAT MIGHT GET LEARNED.
HERE ARE THE COLD, HARD, LIFE ALTERING FACT'S OF WHY I TYPE IN ALL CAPS: 1. IT IS MUCH EASIER, WITH MUCH LESS HAND MOVEMENT. 2. I HAD A MAJOR STROKE 2 1/2 YEARS AGO. 3. I GOT LEFT WITH THE USE OF MY LEFT ARM & HAND, ONLY. WHICH MEANS I MUST BE CAUTIOUS OF HOW I USE IT, SO AS NOT TO OVER WORK IT.
I'VE BEEN ABLE TO REGAIN THE FULL USE OF MY LEFT LEG, BUT.... NOT MY RIGHT LEG, NOR MY RIGHT ARM. (MY RIGHT ARM IS MORE OR LESS; IN MY WAY)
ON A GOOD DAY I CAN SNAIL PACE "WALK" 100', WITH THE USE OF MY CANE. AT HOME, I NAVIGATE MAINLY VIA WHEELCHAIR BECAUSE... I DO NEED TO BE ABLE TO CARRY THINGS, AND... WITH ONLY ONE WORKABLE ARM/HAND (THAT I NEED FOR MY CANE), THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
SOOOOOOOO, THERE YOU HAVE IT; THE REASON WHY I TYPE IN ALL CAP'S.
I NOTED THE FACT IN YOUR POST TO ME, THERE WAS NOT ONE MENTION, NOT ONE... NOT EVEN IN YOUR COPY & PASTED WORDS, OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT A PERSON JUST MIGHT HAVE A PHYSICAL DISABILITY. (NO, I DIDN'T CLICK ON ANY OF YOUR LINK'S. I'M IN HOPE'S THE WORDS: "PHYSICAL DISABILITY", ARE IN THE FINE PRINT, IN AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES)
IN SHORT, IF YOU PREFER I DON'T POST ANYMORE...ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS SAY SO. I'M A BIG GIRL & WILL ABIDE BY THE RULES... NO PROBLEM. (I RECALL READING COMPLAINTS, YEARS AGO, ABOUT A MEMBER HERE THAT ALSO TYPED IN CAPS, BECAUSE HE HAD VERY POOR VISION. ALEX, BEING THE KIND OF GUY HE WAS, HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT. ALEX WAS A WONDERFUL MAN, IMO.)
MY ARM ACHES. IT'S TAKEN ME OVER AN HOUR TO TYPE THIS... NEEDED TO TAKE A FEW BREAKS.
AS ALWAYS~~ 12345 (AKA JEAN N.)
Holy Smokes!
It's Jean.
So sorry to hear your misfortune and with all the outside activity you always kept us up to date about , your condition must be torture. But you were never about self pity so I will just acknowledge it.
Carry on
John
Jean N ... OMG.... wow...... good to hear from you again.... sorry to hear about your medical issues.... stay strong... God bless you!
Good to hear from you Jean!! Sorry to hear about your stroke. Prayers for you. Carry on
So great to hear from you Jean, sorry to hear about your stroke!
You are always welcome here, especially with your handicap.
Now that you explained your handicap, I have a suggestion. Try typing with no caps at all and see how that works. It takes the exact same effort and is 200% more readable for readers and I assume the objective that you post here is to be read.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i will demonstrate with the rest of this post because i also have a similar handicap from my autoimmune disease.
i received another cortisone shot on friday in my right shoulder and will eventually be getting a shoulder replacement --both knees were supposed to be replaced but smart supplements and meds and tolerating pain/limitations have saved them-- and actually, had to give up playing piano when i became moderator because using the keyboard and mouse extremely flare up my shoulder and make it hurt all day............and we all know how extremely long worded i get.
in doing this, i'm actually trying to help you, jean. i know you don't want to change and don't want to read anything that anybody writes that is trying to help you jean but posting in caps is a very well known turn off to a vast, vast majority of people and has been known for many decades.
we will tolerate it here, if you don't want to change to the much more appealing, no caps at all mode, that i'm typing with and you can prove to us that nobody is ever going to change you, even with sincere, positive suggestions with well known and personal benefits and you will get your far right troops fired up by rejecting a no brainer suggestion from somebody, who's committed their life to try to get people to communicate with each other so their message is read and understood.
it's your choice, as you may have noticed, i've never told you that you can't type that way. go ahead and be stubborn, but i'm telling you, it's mainly hurting jean and i'm not here to change jean or confront you, i'm here to help jean.
if you decide that you still want to type all caps............that's cool but please don't blame it on the disability any more because you have a much better option that i just demonstrated and i have a similar issue for a different reason but not as bad. i use this method sometimes when i email because its just my friends and family and not a public forum, where numerous people read.
i hope that makes sense jean.
please don't look at this as coming from an enemy that has a political disagreement with you but, instead from a friend with a similar disability- for a different reason- that will help you.
i also noted you are using punctuation that requires using 2 keys at the same time. you can avoid that by substituting other punctuation that requires only hitting one key.
for instance, instead of using ( ), like you did in many places in the last post, you can use -- -- like i did above and only have to hit 1 key at the same time.
best to you and your struggling health/handicap and you're always welcome here, even with all caps.
ps. i never thought that you were using the caps to scream or from anger, like some people do or i would have said so because of your use of punctuation. people that do that, often have alot of !!!!!'s after sentences.
the links that i provided were just good guidance from experts and i'm pretty sure they assumed, that the person using all caps has chosen all caps over no caps because no caps is better in every way. .........as was just demonstrated.
!@#$%^&*()+
On my keyboard these symbols are easer with cap locks on. However, ./ 'are harder.
In her case I believe we can easily overlook the caps.
Jean :-) I have thought of you often,. I had no idea you and 12345 were one and the same. So great to see you again.
THANKS, MIKE. IN SHORT, I'LL STICK WITH MY CAPS.
:) (7475)JOHN, GUNTER, CUTWORM & TIM... THANK YOU. ALL.
IT'S NICE TO SEE THE FORUM STILL INTACT. <3
ULTRA MAGA, HERE
AS ALWAYS... AKA: JEAN. N.
THANKS JEAN!
YOU ARE TOTALLY WELCOME TO CONTINUE TO POST HERE WITH THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON TURNED ON AND HAVE ALMOST ALL THE LETTERS BE CAPS THAT SHOUDLN'T BE CAPS INSTEAD OF JUST A FEW LETTERS NOT BE CAPS THAT SHOULD BE AND HAVE IT MUCH MORE READABLE.
YOU CAN IGNORE MY SINCERE, PRACTICAL ADVICE AND THE REALITIES BUT PLEASE DON'T BLAME IT ON YOUR PHYSICAL DISABILITY.
THERES ANOTHER DISABILITY GOING ON HERE THAT CAUSES THIS BUT ITS NOT PHYSICAL.
IN FACT, YOUR RESPONSE CONFIRMS WHAT THE AUTHORS IN THE ORIGINAL POST STATED ABOUT IT.
I'M JUST HERE TO PASS ON GOOD/TRUTHFUL INFORMATION WITH SOLID EVIDENCE/FACTS THAT HELP IMPROVE PEOPLE AND THEIR THINKING/MINDS, NOT FORCE THEM TO USE IT.
THANKS, MIKE