<p>“shrill and hysterical? don’t think so, but nice try at name calling when you can’t answer a question, so typical”</p>
<p>Shrill and hysterical. Exactly. I answered you promptly. You may not have liked or agreed with the response, but there was one. I’ve asked you before not to lie about my posts and I’m going to ask you again.</p>
<p>It is okay, I don’t think he tried to shoot his friend on purpose either, but the events before and after, well, we shall never know shall we?</p>
<p>guess honesty from government is one of those San Francisco values that scares some people</p>
<p>If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn’t need to be “comfortable” - wow, comfort for the VP is more important than real questions</p>
<p>it is okay zoosermom, go at get all wound up yourself…please explain how I am out of touch, because I don’t think Fox News is “fair and balanced”</p>
<p>ah, I am soooo hurt</p>
<p>"But was anyone else allowed to ask him questions, besides a network who loves to spin?</p>
<p>Providing footage is quite different then providing access, but guesss some people can’t see the difference"</p>
<p>You can certainly hold that opinion. It is a valid one. I disagree because it was a personal matter, not one of national security or pertaining to an upcoming election, but you are certainly entitled to find the Vice President’s choice not to your liking. You still have not, however, answered my question as to why the EXISTENCE of Fox News bothers you so much. If it’s all emotional, that’s fine, but let’s call it what it is, but please stop twisting and obfuscating.</p>
<p>and FF, it is just fine we are in control, now maybe we can see how much $$ has been spent on this war, how much damage has been done, get some real numbers, get a handle on prescription medicine, actually fund Bush’s baby, No Child Left Behind, guess those SF Values are too much for some to even contemplate</p>
<p>How is the war going for you, anyway?</p>
<p>Oh I don’t care it exists, did I say otherwise? nope, it is what it is, but when they claim they are “fair and balance”, well not so much</p>
<p>You were the first to call names, zoosermom…how childish</p>
<p>you got personal, not me, but if you feel the need to do that to defend yourself, I find that so interesting</p>
<p>Enough fighting. To your corners, girls.</p>
<p>Signed,</p>
<p>Been a mother a long time :p</p>
<p>CGM, I didn’t call you a name. Please go back and re-read the initial post, I was discussing the COLLECTIVE (that’s the word I have used through the thread) animosity toward Fox and used your statement as an example. That is not calling names, but you already know that. I will now make a personal statement (just so we’re clear): I (personally, me, myself) find dishonesty on this forum offensive, and am bothered by instances where a poster will blatantly lie about what another posted. Especially when it’s only a couple of posts before and it’s abundantly clear that the responding poster knows that he/she is not telling the truth.</p>
<p>I don’t like to get involved in these spats, but zoosermom you are not being competely honest with yourself if you don’t see that you made the “shrill and hysterical” label personal to CGM in post #55. Just because you didn’t come out and call her an hysteric or whatever name would connote someone who is “shrill,” the intent was the same. It would be honest of you to admit it. </p>
<p>And if someone says “you didn’t answer my question” when you think that you did answer the question, is that a lie? Personally, I think it’s over the top to accuse someone of lying in that context. What don’t you just point out that someone is wrong without impugning their character?</p>
<p>* “I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy”<a href=“Butler,1912”>/i</a>.</p>
<p>"I don’t like to get involved in these spats, but zoosermom you are not being competely honest with yourself if you don’t see that you made the “shrill and hysterical” label personal to CGM in post #55. Just because you didn’t come out and call her an hysteric or whatever name would connote someone who is “shrill,” the intent was the same. It would be honest of you to admit it. "</p>
<p>I disagree. I was very specifically referencing my post back to the “collective” statement. Although I do see why you would take it that way. I am the first to apologize if I post inappropriately, but I don’t think that I did so here.</p>
<p>“And if someone says “you didn’t answer my question” when you think that you did answer the question, is that a lie? Personally, I think it’s over the top to accuse someone of lying in that context. What don’t you just point out that someone is wrong without impugning their character?”</p>
<p>CGM and I have a history of this issue. As you may have noted from my post saying “I’ve asked you not to” I was, however, wrong to put that comment on the forum, although I think I am correct in referring to a pattern of intentional behavior. I will apologize for not sitting on my hands here.</p>
<p>“pattern of intential behavior”…okey dokey</p>
<p>I do not call names, as others often do, zoosermom, if you want to discuss patterns…l.seems sometimes when people don’t hear what they want, they resort to personal insults</p>
<p>When I talked about Cheney and Fox, you called me shrill and hysterical</p>
<p>i have always said when a person resort to calling another names, it shows they have no argument</p>
<p>I never said I was afraid or wanted Fox gone…just think they should be seen as what they are…if you can’t see that, that is your problem not mine</p>
<p>Let us see how the conversation flowed, shall we?</p>
<p>You asked why people were so “concerned or whatever” about Fox, as they have a miniscule audience (which does please me)</p>
<p>And I said, well, when the VP of the USA talks to THAT station after a kind of bizarre event which many in the world were curious about, he must have a reason, I asked why</p>
<p>You said because it was “comfortablle”</p>
<p>I said, wow, if the VP needs to be comforted and can only talk to people that won’t ask real questions, that is kind of scary, the second most powerful person on the planet needs to feel comfortable</p>
<p>At some point in there, you called me shrill and hysterical…</p>
<p>If I think the VP should be able to handle the press and not have to be coddled, that makes me shrill?</p>
<p>All I can do is laugh…</p>
<p>Read your timeline CGM. "You said because it was “comfortablle”</p>
<p>That was my reason. You may not have liked it, you may not have agreed, but it was my reason, my answer and as your timeline showed, it was prompt. You criticized and ridiculed my answer, as you arre entitled to do, but you then came right back and said that I didn’t answer you. I found that dishonest and still do.</p>
<p>However, I do know from other threads that you are smart, kind, articulate and informative, but your posting style in the political realm bothers me a lot so I think the best thing to do is simply avoid your posts in this realm. Which is on me, not you.</p>
<p>I guess I was expecting more of an answer then just “he was comfortable” like WHY he was comfortable at that network? were they his friends, did they know they would ask any real questions, did he know it was really just a fluff piece?</p>
<p>see, people say they are comfortable for a variety of reasons- some because they need to be around “the same types of people”, some because they don’t want to be challenged</p>
<p>Why does Bush basically do town halls by invitation only? So he is comfortable</p>
<p>If you really wanted to answer the question, you would have explained more about having friends at a network, which, tells me alot, when I think about it…the network is friends of Cheney, so he feels comfortable…which, gee, goes back to the point about Fox not really being fair and balanced, doesn’t it</p>
<p>If perhaps the interviewer at the time actually asked some questions that were in many people’s minds, then it would have not been so “comfortable”</p>
<p>So if you felt you answered the question, fine…but calling names is not warranted</p>
<p>I guess I was expecting more of an answer from someone who seems to have no problems with Fox…</p>
<p>Me, i think Fox is just bad journalism most of the time…</p>
<p>I’m only going to respond to clear this up, but will not do so on political threads going forward.</p>
<p>CGM Posted: " guess I was expecting more of an answer then just “he was comfortable” like WHY he was comfortable at that network? were they his friends, did they know they would ask any real questions, did he know it was really just a fluff piece?"</p>
<p>ZM Responds: If you ask someone a question, you don’t get to expect what the answer should be. You have to take it as it is and, as you made clear, I did answer, you didn’t like the answer. Which is why I felt and feel that you were intentionally dishonest in saying that I didn’t answer. You can’t say on the one hand “I don’t like your answer” and simultaneously attack someone for not answering. It was MY answer and it was and remains what I think the truth is of the specific question “why did Cheney pick Fox.” Nothing you’ve said since has changed my opinion and you know what? I think you share my opinion.</p>
<p>CGM Posted: “If you really wanted to answer the question, you would have explained more about having friends at a network, which, tells me alot, when I think about it…the network is friends of Cheney, so he feels comfortable…which, gee, goes back to the point about Fox not really being fair and balanced, doesn’t it”</p>
<p>ZM responded: Which would be YOUR answer if you had been asked the question, but it wasn’t MY answer when I was asked the question. Do you only want to talk to yourself?</p>
<p>CGM stated: “So if you felt you answered the question, fine…but calling names is not warranted”</p>
<p>ZM responded: I think this is disingenuous. Again, you criticize my answer but then say it wasn’t given. It is also disingenuous because I clearly stated earlier in the threat that I think the “collective” animosity to Fox is shrill and hysterical. I did and do think that. Your next post proved that to me, as did the tone of several others. By dictionary definition, those posts were shrill and hysterical. I stand by that.</p>
<p>CGM stated: “I guess I was expecting more of an answer from someone who seems to have no problems with Fox…”</p>
<p>ZM responded: You don’t know that. I’ve never, ever stated an opinion on Fox because I work all day and by the time I do get to the TV it’s time for the Food Network. I’m lots more shallow than a Fox apologist. I have, however, asked why so many people are so crazed about Fox because I have seen their ratings and they ain’t no big deal. </p>
<p>CGM stated: "Me, i think Fox is just bad journalism most of the time…</p>
<p>CM respondes: Cool. Thank you for responding.</p>
<p>“the network is friends of Cheney, so he feels comfortable…which, gee, goes back to the point about Fox not really being fair and balanced, doesn’t it”</p>
<p>And of OJ! ;), (wonder how much they’re paying him…)</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>“And of OJ! , (wonder how much they’re paying him”</p>
<p>Actually, OJ is on Fox Broadcasting as opposed to Fox News. In case you want to know where to find it!</p>
<p>Anyway, it is all good money for one of my alma mater’s! (Rupert Murdoch is Worcester College, Oxford’s second biggest contributor.) Maybe he can even establish an OJ scholarship! 
(I expect we’ll quickly see a Faux Gnus crossover.)</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Given the headlines in the NYT today, I claim total victory.</p>
<p>I beg to differ – Leader Pelosi probably had a strong desire to stay out of the firefight; it was probably because of a request by Mr. Murtha that the Leader stepped into the fray. Mr. Hoyer is a very capable and experienced floor leader, with tons of procedural and parliamentary experience in his capacity as Minority Whip, and is simply better suited for the position than Mr. Murtha. Although both men are incredibly respectable and have stellar careers, the Democratic caucus probably believed that it would be wiser to rely on Mr. Hoyer’s experience. </p>
<p>Contrary to the New York Times’ attempt to generate drama re: the House leadership elections, this was not a snub of Leader (Speaker-designate) Pelosi.</p>