"T. Early" wrote in message ...
Let's have a brief intelligence (or in the case of a Jones,
non-intelligence) test. Show me anywhere in my previous post where I
suggested "censoring" Jones. My main regret, which may require some
degree of reading comprehension to follow, is that Noorey is not up to
the task of exposing Jones' absurd fallacies for what they are. I'm
guessing you aren't either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

"Mack Sambo" wrote in message
om...
"T. Early" wrote in message
...
Let's have a brief intelligence (or in the case of a Jones,
non-intelligence) test. Show me anywhere in my previous post
where I
suggested "censoring" Jones. My main regret, which may require
some
degree of reading comprehension to follow, is that Noorey is not
up to
the task of exposing Jones' absurd fallacies for what they are.
I'm
guessing you aren't either.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly
if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that
the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

Let's see if I'm too "arrogant" to follow your line of reasoning.
After admitting that I listen to Jones on SW, I express concern
(regret, if you want) that Jones is getting three hours on Coast to
Coast because I question Noorey's ability to appropriately question
Jones on some of his political fantasies.

This, in your mind, equates to advocating censoring Jones, which I did
not. When asked directly where I advocating censoring him, you say
it's "implied." In other words, I didn't say it, but we'll pretend
that wishing Jones would appear in a different forum with a better
interviewer equates to calling for censorship (i.e., taking him off
the air). Having put words in my mouth, and trying to pass that off
as "implied," you now suggest that *I'm* intellectually dishonest and
jump back on the censorship horse. So let's resolve that once and
for all--I'd like nothing better than to see Jones get as much
personal coverage as possible by seasoned interviewers who don't have
Noorey's penchant for tossing softballs. Noorey is a decent guy with
a good show within it's realm, but wouldn't it be great to hear Jones
explaining the "Secrets of the Bohemian Grove" to Mike Wallace?

It also strikes me as rather strange that you consider it "arrogant"
to desire that Jones be interviewed by someone with sufficient
knowledge of politics to put his "ideas" to the test, rather than
someone whose idea of a credible source is Richard C. Hoagland.
Still, you don't have to be arrogant to recognize that for anyone who
regards Jones as source of wisdom on current events, an informed,
politically astute interviewer probably is the last thing you'd want.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly
if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that
the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

Let's see if I'm too "arrogant" to follow your line of reasoning.
After admitting that I listen to Jones on SW, I express concern
(regret, if you want) that Jones is getting three hours on Coast to
Coast because I question Noorey's ability to appropriately question
Jones on some of his political fantasies.

This, in your mind, equates to advocating censoring Jones, which I did
not. When asked directly where I advocating censoring him, you say
it's "implied." In other words, I didn't say it, but we'll pretend
that wishing Jones would appear in a different forum with a better
interviewer equates to calling for censorship (i.e., taking him off
the air). Having put words in my mouth, and trying to pass that off
as "implied," you now suggest that *I'm* intellectually dishonest and
jump back on the censorship horse. So let's resolve that once and
for all--I'd like nothing better than to see Jones get as much
personal coverage as possible by seasoned interviewers who don't have
Noorey's penchant for tossing softballs. Noorey is a decent guy with
a good show within it's realm, but wouldn't it be great to hear Jones
explaining the "Secrets of the Bohemian Grove" to Mike Wallace?

It also strikes me as rather strange that you consider it "arrogant"
to desire that Jones be interviewed by someone with sufficient
knowledge of politics to put his "ideas" to the test, rather than
someone whose idea of a credible source is Richard C. Hoagland.
Still, you don't have to be arrogant to recognize that for anyone who
regards Jones as source of wisdom on current events, an informed,
politically astute interviewer probably is the last thing you'd want.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay so rather than keeping Jone's off the air you want him on as
much as possible with "seasoned interviewers." I think you'd be
surprised at how well Alex does in that setting. I've heard him
interviewed on Denver's KOA radio station by Rick Barber (one of the
best unknown radio interviwers in the business) and Alex was
outstanding. He was scheduled to do one hour and the host kept asking
him to stay for another hour and another. He ended up doing four hours
and effectively backing all his assertions with mainstream media
sources. Really quite an impressive performance by Jones.
As for Mike Wallace, yes I'm sure you would love to see that, as
would every other foe of Jone's. Wallace and 60 Minutes tape anywhere
from 3-6 hours of interview with their victim and then edit it down to
fit a 15 minute segment. Cutting and splicing to make their target
look like a complete fool and them like geniuses. The oldest trick in
the book and the reason 60 minutes won't do live interviews.
And this mercifully brings to a close this thread, for me anyway.
Best wishes.
Mack

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:11:26 -0600, Mack Sambo wrote
(in message ) :

Okay so rather than keeping Jone's off the air you want him on as
much as possible with "seasoned interviewers." I think you'd be
surprised at how well Alex does in that setting. I've heard him
interviewed on Denver's KOA radio station by Rick Barber (one of the
best unknown radio interviwers in the business) and Alex was
outstanding. He was scheduled to do one hour and the host kept asking
him to stay for another hour and another. He ended up doing four hours
and effectively backing all his assertions with mainstream media
sources.


But - as Alex "Drooling" Jones has explained - all the mass media is
leftwing, communist, socialistic, fascistic new world order and can't be
trusted.

And, as you wrote, " . . . and effectively backing all his assertions with
mainstream media sources."


So The Drooler is "backing all his assertions" with "mainstream media
sources" that can't be trusted?

The strange little man who listened to The Drooler and then broke into the
Bohemian Grove, armed and then went to sleep, is an absolutely perfect
personification of The Drooler's "true believer" listeners.



Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
See Eric Hoffer for your biography.

Gray Shockley wrote in message s.com...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:11:26 -0600, Mack Sambo wrote
(in message ) :

Okay so rather than keeping Jone's off the air you want him on as
much as possible with "seasoned interviewers." I think you'd be
surprised at how well Alex does in that setting. I've heard him
interviewed on Denver's KOA radio station by Rick Barber (one of the
best unknown radio interviwers in the business) and Alex was
outstanding. He was scheduled to do one hour and the host kept asking
him to stay for another hour and another. He ended up doing four hours
and effectively backing all his assertions with mainstream media
sources.


But - as Alex "Drooling" Jones has explained - all the mass media is
leftwing, communist, socialistic, fascistic new world order and can't be
trusted.

And, as you wrote, " . . . and effectively backing all his assertions with
mainstream media sources."


So The Drooler is "backing all his assertions" with "mainstream media
sources" that can't be trusted?

The strange little man who listened to The Drooler and then broke into the
Bohemian Grove, armed and then went to sleep, is an absolutely perfect
personification of The Drooler's "true believer" listeners.



Gray Shockley
See Eric Hoffer for your biography.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guess the guy can't win. If he sites alternatie sources he is
dismissed as a crackpot. So he uses "mainstream" sources to satisfy
the cynics like you. Your logic is easily turned around on you. If the
mainstream media isn't what Jone's claims and is objective and
truthful with no hidden agenda, and he uses it to confirm what he puts
forth then his assertions must be credible.
YAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNN and *PLONK*
Mack
See Lenin's definition of "USEFUL IDIOT" for your biography.