The Wall

[BananaStand]

It's often enough that we've noticed it, let's leave it at that.

Maybe because whenever it does happen, someone decides to have a hissy fit.

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it

you admit to a commitment to 'call me out' any time it happens. No wonder it's become noticeable.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe because whenever it does happen, someone decides to have a hissy fit.

Lol, only one person having a hissy fit here mate.

you admit to a commitment to 'call me out' any time it happens. No wonder it's become noticeable.

Sure, and if someone made a habit out of quoting CNN, MSNBC, or Breitbart the same would happen.

[BananaStand]

Sure, and if someone made a habit out of quoting CNN, MSNBC, or Breitbart the same would happen.

How is it a habit? Again, what is the score? What % of my posts make it a habit?

I've quoted CNN and MSNBC multiple times as well. Where was the outrage then?

[Poopadoop]

How is it a habit? Again, what is the score? What % of my posts make it a habit?

I've quoted CNN and MSNBC multiple times as well. Where was the outrage then?

I'm not going through your 560 posts to make a count of who you've cited and how often.

Maybe you can do it and report back on how objective your sources have been?

If you quoted other shit sources too then I'm sorry I missed it. I hate to break this to you, but I don't read every single thing you post.

[BananaStand]

Maybe you can do it and report back on how objective your sources have been?

Just within this thread....

Washington Examiner - 1
NY Times - 2
Drugwarfacts.org - 1
NH.gov - 1
Fox News - 2
Wikipedia - 1
FiveThirtyEight.com - 1
Washington POst - 1
Time.com - 1
Source.Wustle.edu - 1
ElementsBehavioralHealth.com - 1
CBS News - 1
Narconon.org - 1
Heroin.net - 1
TheCannabist - 1
USA Today - 1
BuzzFeed - 1

As predicted, Fox News is less than 20% of my cited sources. In fact, it's nearly half that, 10.5%.

I admit, it is my most quoted source at nearly double all the others. Though, it is tied for the top spot with its diametric opposite, the NY Times. So there is hardly evidence of partisan bias.

Also, according to you, Fox has no competition. So if we're really doing the partisan score keeping, Fox, and it's 2 citations go in the right column. The NY times, WaPo, Buzzfeed, and CBS News are all on the same side (according to you), and they make up 5 of the 19....more than a quarter! Clearly I'm some kind of bleeding heart alt-leftist.

[Poopadoop]

Just within this thread....

That's nice but I never said you used Fox repeatedly in this thread only (although it turns out you did). Thanks for making my point.

Also, according to you, Fox has no competition.

You really learn nothing when you get shown how you twist people's words. You just keep doing it.

"Fox has no competition for the right-wing MSM" is what I said. That doesn't mean it's the only source of right-wing bias out there.

So if we're really doing the partisan score keeping, Fox, and it's 2 citations go in the right column. The NY times, WaPo, Buzzfeed, and CBS News are all on the same side (according to you), and they make up 5 of the 19....more than a quarter! Clearly I'm some kind of bleeding heart alt-leftist.

The context of the citations is what's important here. Citing sources != agreeing with them. I could cite Fox News, comment 'lol', and that would hardly be a ringing endorsement of whatever they said. How many of those citations from the NYTimes were you agreeing with I wonder?

And you've also managed another trick there, which was to make the argument about something it wasn't.

So basically, you argue things by 1) twisting others' words so they mean something else; 2) turning an argument about one thing into an argument about something else where you can be 'right'; 3) never backing down an inch on anything; and/or 4) calling people names.

And then you wonder why you get called a troll.