This isn't biased or anything, is it?

[TBoneTX 46,276]

a classic case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

This reminds me of one of those single-panel comics in the newspaper some years ago ("The Far Side," or similar). It showed some white-coated, bespectacled sorts coming to blows in front of a blackboard with algebraic equations written on it. The caption was "Another case of too many scientists and not enough hunchbacks."

Algebra is the national language of Algeria, isn't it, si man?

"Si man?" Why do you keep on asking if people are a member of the Smithsonian Institute and asking if they are a man?

I don't no, man -- "once I was blind, but now I can si"? And I thought that "si" stood for "Sports Illustrated" or was a Greek letter, phi man. Edited June 5, 2010 by TBoneTX

[Heracles 417]

Many OT threads = pain without purpose, si man.Many people would instead opt for the shortcut of drinking immediately & heavily, si man.

I am surprised you are even posting here, considering you disdain for the place. In particular considering you were unanimously and epically pwned by so many members in the other thread. Si man?

I don't no, man -- "once I was blind, but now I can si"? And I thought that "si" stood for "Sports Illustrated" or was a Greek letter, phi man.

Easy there Texan, you are just too smart for the most of us in OT.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[TBoneTX 46,276]

I am surprised you are even posting here, considering you disdain for the place. In particular considering you were unanimously and epically pwned by so many members in the other thread. Si man?

Don't squeal on me, but I'm badly abusing my day-pass from the asylum, si man.

Easy there Texan, you are just too smart for the most of us in OT.

Whutchu tawkin' about, Willis?

[Heracles 417]

Don't squeal on me, but I'm badly abusing my day-pass from the asylum, si man.Whutchu tawkin' about, Willis?

I always find it funny that the same few who cry the most about hating VJ - prior to them leaving - are the same folks who least partake in a legitimate conversation. Furthermore, brand everyone with differing views as idiots. You then go on this tirade of not caring and talk gibberish and finally get a life and leave. At least save us the time. Surely someone as smart as you gets the gist. Capish?

Edited June 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[GabiandVi 34]

If your intention was not to make a point about a pattern of bias, then I stand corrected. From what I'm hearing, your only point is that language can be used to distort information and control how it's received and perceived? Well we all agree then; that's pretty basic.

Which is why I don't waste my time arguing it.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion with regard to the example given, then. I am surprised you find this one of the most profound and blatant instances you've ever seen. I, and others across the political spectrum in this thread, don't see what you see. Perhaps because the term "border fence" is not an entrenched part of my personal lexicon, I perceive that term and the phrase "separating fence" as roughly equivalent. I don't see the outrageous manipulation you do. I originally chimed in because you asserted that people's rejection of your assertion proved it, which I found to be faulty.

No offense, but your ignorance of the term "border fence" cannot be an excuse for any journalist or editor writing about it. In fact, if that is the excuse, it would be more shameful than their blatant attempt at manipulation. And you yourself have implied that "border fence" is no euphemism for what it names when you stated that you see "separating fence" as an equivalent term. Therefore there is no reason to suddenly change the term that has been in use for over a decade except to manipulate the perceptions of the reader. "Border fence" describes it exactly - a fence on the border. It's not as though the term has been "friendship fence" or even "protecting fence." Though a MUCH better argument can be made that the "only" purpose of a fence is to protect the contents within it than that its "only" purpose is to separate the things on either side. And yet I'm sure you would agree with me that "protecting fence" would be blatant attempt at manipulation. Why, then, would you deny that "separating fence" is not so?

As for others on this thread, do not be so sure they are as ignorant as you of the term, "border fence." My point that you chimed in on was that they were not commenting on the unique twisting of the term, but arguing that the twist was defensible because a fence can only be used to "separate." (Which as stated before is a ridiculously simplistic definition and not even accurate.)

As far as my wanting "to argue that...there is no pattern," I don't know how you could possibly extract that notion from what I've written, because my point all along has been that no productive argument is possible within such a flimsy (imo) framework.

Sorry. Perhaps in the same way you extracted from what I've written that I was trying to establish a pattern of bias with one example.

If you never wanted a discussion, and never intended to waste your time with an actual debate on an interesting issue--how both sides may manipulate language to create influence--then I'm not sure what the point of any of it was.

What is there to debate? As you have stated, it's pretty basic. Why waste time stating the obvious?

The point of this, as I've stated, was that I found this example to be interesting because it was so blatant. (By that I mean not very subtle or clever.) You argue that it isn't. About that, we can have a discussion.

But not every topic on VJ is meant to be a debate. Some are just thrown out there because they are interesting.

[TBoneTX 46,276]

The First Amendment talks about freedom of the depressed. Whom have I branded as an idiot? If perceived so in this thread, then not intended at all, no man; just throwing out some intended-to-be-funny lines.

[Heracles 417]

The First Amendment talks about freedom of the depressed. Whom have I branded as an idiot? If perceived so in this thread, then not intended at all, no man; just throwing out some intended-to-be-funny lines.

Classic sign of someone who has no legitimate discussion of a topic beyond their personal bias or beliefs. Basically, is it because the fence will be on the Mexican border that you don't deem any discussion worthy?

[TBoneTX 46,276]

Classic sign of someone who has no legitimate discussion of a topic beyond their personal bias or beliefs.

Please elaborate.

Basically, is it because the fence will be on the Mexican border that you don't deem any discussion worthy?

I was enjoying the deep back-and-forth of others, and throwing in some opportunistic humor, that's all. What ARE my current views on the border fence?

[Heracles 417]

Please elaborate.I was enjoying the deep back-and-forth of others, and throwing in some opportunistic humor, that's all. What ARE my current views on the border fence?

Once again, why go cry - like a little girl - in the site discussion thread, then hypocritically do the very same thing you are crying against? Si man?

Edited June 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[TBoneTX 46,276]

Once again, why go cry - like a little girl - in the site discussion thread, then hypocritically do the very same thing you are crying against? Si man?

Well, why are you being so argumentative with someone who means you no harm, and who in fact may agree strongly with many or most of YOUR opinions, huh man? I suspect that we could enjoy some great conversations in person over a few beers, actually.

Going to bed now. Have a good night.

[Heracles 417]

Well, why are you being so argumentative with someone who means you no harm, and who in fact may agree strongly with many or most of YOUR opinions, huh man? I suspect that we could enjoy some great conversations in person over a few beers, actually.

Going to bed now. Have a good night.

Well one tends to get like that when they feel they are being ridiculed and mocked.

Alas, you are correct. Being that this is a forum, comments and opinions can be misunderstood. I cannot exactly read someone's face or body language to know if or when they are being facetious [or not].

PS I also come from an argumentative culture, so it's like a reflex.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[evli1966 88]

I have never hard of such term prior to this article, yet I can say I proactively follow the news regarding such stories. This is no different from those labeling illegal aliens undocumented migrants. It's manipulation that at the very least is disingenuous and the worst is a cunning attempt to sway people from reality.

[twowls 217]

Which is why I don't waste my time arguing it.

No offense, but your ignorance of the term "border fence" cannot be an excuse for any journalist or editor writing about it. In fact, if that is the excuse, it would be more shameful than their blatant attempt at manipulation. And you yourself have implied that "border fence" is no euphemism for what it names when you stated that you see "separating fence" as an equivalent term. Therefore there is no reason to suddenly change the term that has been in use for over a decade except to manipulate the perceptions of the reader. "Border fence" describes it exactly - a fence on the border. It's not as though the term has been "friendship fence" or even "protecting fence." Though a MUCH better argument can be made that the "only" purpose of a fence is to protect the contents within it than that its "only" purpose is to separate the things on either side. And yet I'm sure you would agree with me that "protecting fence" would be blatant attempt at manipulation. Why, then, would you deny that "separating fence" is not so?

As for others on this thread, do not be so sure they are as ignorant as you of the term, "border fence." My point that you chimed in on was that they were not commenting on the unique twisting of the term, but arguing that the twist was defensible because a fence can only be used to "separate." (Which as stated before is a ridiculously simplistic definition and not even accurate.)

Sorry. Perhaps in the same way you extracted from what I've written that I was trying to establish a pattern of bias with one example.

What is there to debate? As you have stated, it's pretty basic. Why waste time stating the obvious?

The point of this, as I've stated, was that I found this example to be interesting because it was so blatant. (By that I mean not very subtle or clever.) You argue that it isn't. About that, we can have a discussion.

But not every topic on VJ is meant to be a debate. Some are just thrown out there because they are interesting.

Okey doke. Next topic: what's the deal with airplane food? It's terrrrrible, imo.

(Sorry. I think we've covered everything now and there's no interesting place to go with it. I hear your thoughts but I think we've beat this horse. Til next time with no hard feelings on this end.)

[twowls 217]

I believe the aforementioned about undocumented immigrants was an excellent example. Prior to moving to the US, I had not heard of this term. The point of that example is that by changing the classification of someone, their conduct and public perception is altered. After all, there is a reason why political slogans and cliches have a great power to influence people in the US. Whereas, the same tools and strategies are almost non-existent in political campaigns in countries like AUS. My first federal election here was quite a bizarre and surreal experience, illustrating Americans are gullible to mere wording.

Reality is common sense for most. For example, someone who has not entered a country using legal channels is not merely some undocumented worker/migrant. Otherwise why not allow me to perform open heart-surgery and have me claim I am simply an undocumented surgeon. In reality, such a label does not sound the same as being told I am not a doctor.

First world countries do not allow opinion or ambiguity to guide a country alone. Otherwise as is the case in the US, nothing would be ever done or accomplished. With so many opinions and such a reliance on them, America has a classic case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

Your words are fairly reasonable. But I do perceive a frustration behind them, and so what I'd really like to know is what makes you and your gut feelings about illegal immigrants so different from mine. Maybe it's your experience, maybe it's your inborn constitution, maybe it's a combination. Why does one person wake up feeling like "ya know, we're all humans, and I can see where they're coming from (illegals), and I'm looking for a way to make things work for everybody" when another person wakes and feeling like, "ya know, these people are breaking the law and it won't stand. I've had enough. I'm angry."

I don't want to debate whether illegals should be afforded compassion or intolerance. I just want to talk about why you think we have different takes and responses to these realities. I think the debate would quickly devolve and nobody's going to budge from their stance, so I'm just curious about what we think creates the disparate perceptions. Let's be anthropological about it for a minute.

[TBoneTX 46,276]

Well one tends to get like that when they feel they are being ridiculed and mocked.

Alas, you are correct. Being that this is a forum, comments and opinions can be misunderstood. I cannot exactly read someone's face or body language to know if or when they are being facetious [or not].

PS I also come from an argumentative culture, so it's like a reflex.

A classy response, si man. I'm cool with you and hope that you're cool with me.