tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post6550817998460974306..comments2024-03-19T04:03:14.637-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Kate Zernike never quits!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86937209463298040932014-03-07T13:19:56.375-05:002014-03-07T13:19:56.375-05:00The clock trolls @8:33A! You get called on your b...The clock trolls @8:33A! You get called on your bullshit, so the caller must regard TDH as his "hero."<br /><br />I'll take your word for it that you know what the words mean. It just wasn't possible to tell from the context.<br /><br />You ability to read minds from a blog isn't any better than your vocabulary usage. Not just hatred; not just bitter hatred, but absolute, bitter hatred.<br /><br />Extra points for using the word "festered."<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-41493458325601693042014-03-07T13:14:48.586-05:002014-03-07T13:14:48.586-05:00KZ,
I know you're from out of town, so I'...KZ,<br /><br />I know you're from out of town, so I'm trying to type as slowly as I can so you can follow. Just because you didn't understand something, doesn't mean that TDH has "created a false impression." Clear now?<br /><br />Perhaps "Crapped. On. The. Lawn." means something different in the Galaxy Schizophrenia. Anything is possible.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14384809823299116242014-03-07T13:05:13.115-05:002014-03-07T13:05:13.115-05:00Oh, sorry. Did I forget to ask your permission? ...Oh, sorry. Did I forget to ask your permission? Do you need me to go over the procedure one more time?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18634612862337724802014-03-07T11:32:14.865-05:002014-03-07T11:32:14.865-05:00Seriously stupid! They. Both. Crapped. On. The. L...Seriously stupid! They. Both. Crapped. On. The. Lawn.<br /><br />Who cares if one is compensated like Rin-Tin-Tin and the other is a range free stray? <br /><br />We don't want BOB to clear up "all the details." We just want him to not "disappear" facts to support his meme while accusing others of the same thing.<br /><br />It was, after all, BOB who volunteered to interject the $ 1 rent in this post without mentioning the $1.5 million fee. And it was one of Mr. Somerby's commenter/defenders who said, parroting the OTB "NJ Transit is public." (Which fact, we might note, Maddow herself pointed out.)<br /><br />KZ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15612717562941533782014-03-07T10:52:05.460-05:002014-03-07T10:52:05.460-05:00Seriously??
Maddow has covered the conflict and ...Seriously?? <br /><br />Maddow has covered the conflict and Somerby said she did a poor job doing so. We simply noted BOB doing exactly the same thing. "<br /><br />They. Do. Not. Have. The. Same. Job. Drawing equivalences is so unproductive. It's not Bob's chosen, done for free, mission to clear up all the details of the case. It's beyond me why you fundamentally want him to be someone else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73708310235604540802014-03-07T08:33:29.101-05:002014-03-07T08:33:29.101-05:00Deadrat, I know what both mean. Stop pretending th...Deadrat, I know what both mean. Stop pretending that there are other meanings that excuse that excuse your hero.<br /><br />All one has to do his access his "incomparable archives" to see that whatever bugs Somerby about Maddow is personal, and has festered for six years into absolute, bitter hatred.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4605547130562722992014-03-07T02:53:19.367-05:002014-03-07T02:53:19.367-05:00Now, my dear dedrat, you are sounding positively p...Now, my dear dedrat, you are sounding positively peckish and peeved.<br /><br />KZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85221215373582688432014-03-07T02:50:31.964-05:002014-03-07T02:50:31.964-05:00You didn't call us on our bullshit deadrat, yo...You didn't call us on our bullshit deadrat, you spead a ton of your own rodent feces. You ignored the substance of our comment that Somerby has created a false impression in his post by disappearing a major element of the story and instead said it isn't Somerby's job to cover an issue, just criticize the way the press covers it. Maddow has covered the conflict and Somerby said she did a poor job doing so. We simply noted BOB doing exactly the same thing. <br /><br />KZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82233530876869530842014-03-06T22:55:22.388-05:002014-03-06T22:55:22.388-05:00The clock trolls @7:21!
Kinda like clockwork, eh ...The clock trolls @7:21!<br /><br />Kinda like clockwork, eh KZ? As soon as anyone calls you on your bullshit, he must have his head up "BOB's hindquarters," in your delicate phrasing.<br /><br />Where did your friend @8:35 get his misimpressions? I don't know. He's not only not my friend, he apparently also posted at some time other than thirty-five minutes after eight o'clock. Heck, where do you get your misimpressions? Somewhere beyond Saturn's orbit, I suppose.<br /><br />Here's TDH: "We’re not suggesting that David Samson hasn’t had conflicts of interest." I'd say that sentence would pretty much give me the impression that there might be something wrong with Mr. Samson's self-dealing. That is, if I didn't already understand what self-dealing means without recourse to TDH. Which, in turn, probably leaves me open to the accusation that I'm a BOBfan. Or something.<br /><br />Why would anybody in the PA vote to reduce the annual rent on a PA property from $900K to $1K? Sounds like somebody arranged a theft of $899,999 per year. It turns out there was a rationale. Was it a good one? Hard to say. Was Samson taking a payoff no matter what the quality of the rationale? Perhaps. Is it TDH's job to tell you the ins and outs of PA dealing?<br /><br />No, that's Darlin' Rachel's job, and a heckuva job she's doing, a fact independent of me or your fantasies about sphincters.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49243411684048409092014-03-06T21:17:31.004-05:002014-03-06T21:17:31.004-05:00Either you don't know what an ad hominem argum...Either you don't know what an ad hominem argument is or you're unclear on what "verboten" means. Look them up, and then don't bother to get back to the commentary.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-89561946463365405702014-03-06T21:14:45.752-05:002014-03-06T21:14:45.752-05:00KZ,
What you want? The Kreskin Award for Predict...KZ,<br /><br />What you want? The Kreskin Award for Predictive Trolling? You and 6:16 write something stupid, then you predict that someone will call you on your stupidity, and then when that happens, you do the happy dance because you're so farsighted.<br /><br />Sorry, you can't inoculate yourself that easily from your ball-peen hammer dumbness. I'm not "defining what BOB meant." I'm telling you what native speakers of English understand. I do this as a public service for those whose first language is Trollish.<br /><br />And all your friend @4:56 did was work himself into a lather over an imagined TDH blog entry. Apparently, he's not satisfied with misinterpreting what TDH actually writes; he now has to write the blog entries himself.<br /><br />You're not happy with my definition of "journalistically proven"? You find you can't apply that definition to reporting on people's motives? Try to imagine my disappointment. Below I'll give you a procedure to measure it.<br /><br />I don't claim to be "Mr. Science." My understanding of physics is at the level of an interested layman, and I think anyone who writes about popular science, including TDH, ought to educate himself to that level. And you <i>allow</i> me to go unchallenged? Mighty decent of you. Here's that procedure I promised for estimating how much that will affect me, even assuming you've got the chops to try: Think of the smallest thing you can; divide that by the largest number you can think of. You'll be getting close.<br /><br />Yeah, I know the difference between the scientific meaning of the word "theory" and the vernacular. Apparently, you don't. Now, take your permission slip and piss off.<br /><br />Do they have that expression in the Galaxy Schizophrenia? I hope so. If not, the google is your friend.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25976871763399538132014-03-06T20:53:15.866-05:002014-03-06T20:53:15.866-05:00Hey, Anonymous @4:56! This is my hypothetical. Y...Hey, Anonymous @4:56! This is my hypothetical. You don't get to hijack it, and then get on your high horse about a story that you pretend that TDH wrote. Have the common courtesy to write your own material and restrict your criticisms of TDH to things he actually writes instead of your fantasies about what he could write.<br /><br />What's wrong with you? Working on your resume for the Trollery Hall of Fame?<br /><br />If Darlin' Rachel reported a story about AFP and restricted her remarks to their deceptive advertising campaign, no one would complain that she hadn't done a story about something else. Except, perhaps the trolls here, whose panties are in a constant twist because TDH won't write a blog entry that suits them.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35912961491611923782014-03-06T20:36:48.211-05:002014-03-06T20:36:48.211-05:00Thanks for proving KZ might be right, deadrat.
We...Thanks for proving KZ might be right, deadrat.<br /><br />We criticized a sentence as did 6:16. You chimed in, as we predicted with several paragraphs to define what BOB meant. We salute you. As we noted in anticipation of you filling the predicted role of the BOBfan, you might be right.<br /><br />Unfortunately your example of journalisitic proof meets neither of the criteria for which we were seeking definitions. You cited a hypothetica health care ad with very "fuzzy" facts. We asked for motives which had been "journalistically established" and theories which had been "journalistically disproven." You provided an example of neither, much less a definition.<br /><br />Anon. @ 4:56 did a good job with your hypothetical ad by posturing another hypothetical. But what would BOB's motive be in attacking Maddow in his example? How would you establish it journalitically?<br /><br />You claim to be Mr. Science around here, at least compared to BOB. We will allow you to pat yourself on the back unchallenged. But you ought to know proof and disrproof of theories. Pretty tough act for even a conscientious journalist.<br /><br />KZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9801088768813005312014-03-06T19:21:41.440-05:002014-03-06T19:21:41.440-05:00deadrat, we might conclude you have a point were y...deadrat, we might conclude you have a point were your head not invisible from its location so far up BOB's hindquarters. Where, perchance, do you imagine our friend Anon.@ 8:35 got the misimpression there was nothing wrong with Mr. Samson's self dealing if the money was simply changing hands between two public agencies?<br /><br />Why from "we only muse about news <strong>coverage</strong>" BOB.<br /><br />"Just for the record, the entity whose rent was reduced is a public agency too. Which means theoretically that the money this agency is saving on rent goes to the good of the public!"<br /><br />Merely two posts back. BOB just disappeared a few facts, deadrat, that's all. Now snuggle up tight and don't scratch the sphincter with your tiny little claws.<br /><br />KZ<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50881662578051539342014-03-06T16:56:56.048-05:002014-03-06T16:56:56.048-05:00Yes, ad hominem is verboten to everyone except Bob...Yes, ad hominem is verboten to everyone except Bob and his fans.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76320316204276578812014-03-06T16:56:03.276-05:002014-03-06T16:56:03.276-05:00If Maddow reported that the ad you described was b...If Maddow reported that the ad you described was blatantly deceptive because it used actors and not real people, Somerby would be on her in a heartbeat crying that she is "clowning" once again.<br /><br />And how is she clowning? By claiming that just because the ad used professional actors instead of Bette from Spokane herself, it doesn't necessarily mean that the situations described were not real. And since Maddow failed to "journalistically prove" that no one had their health insurance cancelled again, she is guilty once again of "ginning up controvers" while stuffing millions in her pants on behalf the partisan hacks she works for, and is herself.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20619779805581488952014-03-06T16:38:09.240-05:002014-03-06T16:38:09.240-05:00Well, yes, Anonymous @12:53P, but this isn't a...Well, yes, Anonymous @12:53P, but this isn't a matter of vocabulary. It's KZ' s conceit that nobody knows what it means to do a convincing report in the manner of a conscientious journalist..deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10618770149889875162014-03-06T12:59:21.688-05:002014-03-06T12:59:21.688-05:00deadrat is dead on. we the people get screwed ove...deadrat is dead on. we the people get screwed over everyday and the news channels mostly talk about BS. Case in point, Mr. Somerby's data on per capita healthcare spending in industrialized nations...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50834106135601911442014-03-06T12:53:00.788-05:002014-03-06T12:53:00.788-05:00journalistic, from meriam webster online ": ...journalistic, from meriam webster online ": of, relating to, or characteristic of journalism or journalists " Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2048457309811890192014-03-06T12:28:27.971-05:002014-03-06T12:28:27.971-05:00The clock trolls @8:34A: Only someone in thrall t...The clock trolls @8:34A: Only someone in thrall to a cult leader would believe that people do some things routinely and some things rarely. It's one or the other. Only a BOBfan could think otherwise.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53021651673256280282014-03-06T12:23:31.203-05:002014-03-06T12:23:31.203-05:00I, myself, would be happy to see you leave here an...I, myself, would be happy to see you leave here and start a blog about the corrupt doings of the NYNJ PA. I don't know what they would call this where you come from, but here we call it "win-win" for the obvious reasons.<br /><br />TDH wouldn't compete with your new blog, because TDH is about how issues are covered. If there are "news voids" in the 900,000 to 1 reduction in rent, it's up to people like Darlin' Rachel to fill them. She doesn't, and for good or ill, that's what TDH talks about.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78102185659316566652014-03-06T12:15:06.824-05:002014-03-06T12:15:06.824-05:00One of the ongoing criticisms of TDH is that his l...One of the ongoing criticisms of TDH is that his language makes his blog so mysterious that it might as well be written in Rongorongo, and that anyone who offers an explication is merely a BOBfan who's presenting his own interpretation of what is actuallly an unsolvable enigma. Anonymous @6:16A, quotes TDH: "In one of her rare points of clarity, Rachel Maddow routinely notes that the motive has not been established." And he wonders how can Maddow work both routinely and rarely? It's a mystery beyond human comprehension. Unless, of course, in the highly unlikely event that Maddow, like the rest of us, does some things routinely and some things rarely.<br /><br />Now KZ chimes in from some area of the universe uninhabited by journalists. What could anyone mean by the term "journalistic proof"? he wonders. Proof is a high standard and its literal use should be restricted to the work of bakers, brewers, minters, and mathematicians. In the vernacular, something proved is something determined by convincing evidence. In US civil law, this is generally attained by the side with majority of such evidence, the "preponderance." In US criminal law, the state has a higher bar, sufficient evidence to banish all reasonable doubt. In journalism, such proof is obtained by gathering corroborating evidence about a story from all parties involved.<br /><br />Let's try an example. The Orwellianly-named astroturf organization funded by the Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity, has run ads showing some supposedly ordinary Americans receiving the bad news in voiceover that Obamacare has taken away their health insurance. How can we "journalistically prove" that these stories are fact or fiction? First you find the people in the ads and talk to them. They say they're actors, and no, their health insurance is just fine. Then you ask a spokesman for AFP whether the people in the ads are actors, and the spokesman says, Yes, the ad is meant to convey a general condition in the country and that the actors don't actually have the problem; they merely "represent" the problem. You have now "journalistically proven" that the ad is nothing but deception. The problem it trumptets may exist, but you can't tell whether it does by listening to fiction.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53384601632149316542014-03-06T11:04:59.180-05:002014-03-06T11:04:59.180-05:00Which is why it is right for him to note the color...Which is why it is right for him to note the color of the clown shoes Maddow wears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-68725624278787720842014-03-06T11:00:32.500-05:002014-03-06T11:00:32.500-05:00Anon @ 6:16
We did notice. It is one of those de...Anon @ 6:16<br /><br />We did notice. It is one of those delightful sentences from BOB which, when criticized, sparks a few fans to write what they think he might have meant. And, who knows (we just don't) they might be right. Which is why, in comments, they should call their opinion of what BOB meant a "theory." <br /><br />Speaking of that:<br /><br />"On a journalistic basis, we would say that nothing has been established about the motive for this ridiculous act."<br /><br />We are still unclear what is either the meaning, purpose, or motive in the contant reference to "journalistic" in BOB's writing. He repeats this term almost as many times as he calls Maddow a clown or says Chris Matthews almost got somebody killed.<br /><br />I wouldn't bet the 10 million cars cramming into the GW Bridge from Ft. Lee on it, but I'd wager neither BOB nor his readers can define a motive which has been "journalistically" established or a theory which has been "journalistically" disproven.<br /><br />KZ<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77558320407671807772014-03-06T10:13:30.781-05:002014-03-06T10:13:30.781-05:008:30 am et al, you write:
"You are not priva...8:30 am et al, you write:<br /><br />"You are not privatizing something when it is public."<br /><br />We agree. Piracy is perhaps a better word. <br /><br />We take over for the person who began this thread since we have commented on this point prior to this and have mastered our P's and Q's on this particular problem, and perhaps that commenter is asleep.<br /><br />Mr. Samson chairs the Port Authority, PA (Public Agency 1). He is founding partner of Wolff and Samson, (Private Firm 1). His Public Agency owns land leased to New Jersey Transit (Public Agency 2) which it uses to operate Park and Ride Lots (PRL) serving the New Jersey Motoring Public (NJMP).<br /><br />Public Agency 2 decides to profit by privatizing the operation of its PRLs. In 2010 it hires a law firm (Private Firm) as opposed to a business consultant or using in house staff. The purpose of the $650,000 contract is "as special counsel for an initiative to privatize the mass transit agency’s parking lots. The idea was to turn over operation of NJ Transit’s parking lots to private companies." The firm is Wolff and Sampson. Mr. Sampson is already well connected to the new Governor and is selected to chair PA1 in 2011. The contract is later increased to $1.5 million. <br /><br />In 2012, PA1, with the vote of its chair, lowers the lease cost for public land it owns but is used by PA2 for a PRL from $900,000 to $ 1 a year. No big deal, you might say. It is all public money, you say. Except for the $1.5 million which we presume is ponied up by the NJMP and put into the deep private pockets of the private firm partnered by Samson for legal services rendered to PA2 for a public service PA2 does on property owned by PA1 which Samson chairs.<br /><br />Yes, PA 2 is a public agency. And what has become of this $1.5 million in special counsel services needed for the privatization initiative begun back in 2010? "The parking-lot privatization plan, meanwhile, appears to be in limbo. .... There has been no mention of it since July 2011 in the official accounts of NJ Transit’s board meetings. The last time it was raised was at that July 2011 meeting when the fees to Wolff & Samson were authorized to go up to $1.5 million." <br /><br />http://www.northjersey.com/news/New_Port_Authority_conflict_issue_emerges_NJ_Transit_got_1_lease_while_a_client_of_David_Samsons_law_firm.html?page=all#sthash.MgGZPLUF.dpuf<br /><br />KZ (Happy to fill in for the news voids created by BOB, who trims unecessary fat from stories to serve his meme or to make his posts crisp and clear when covering piddle and pap)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com