The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

New York Times Editorial Board Member Promotes Blatantly Edited Trump Coronavirus Quote.

Aside from not knowing the difference between the words 'explicative' and 'expletive,' the New York Times' Mara Gay has a long history of bombastic rhetoric and irresponsible behavior.

She was disturbed by noticing American flags on pickup trucks.

"She was disturbed by noticing American flags on pickup trucks."-johnfibs

Unsurprisingly, johnfibs doesn't find it the least bit ironic that he starts a thread about "blatant editing" of Trump with a blatantly edited comment about what the Gay actually said about flags.

The difference is, johnforbes edited (intentionally misrepresented) a portion of an MSNBC newscast interview. johnny left out the contextual portion of her comment (the portion in the middle of her sentence, completely changing the meaning of the comment) about the flags in trucks. Gay didn't alter anything Trump said. She just didn't post his next comment on a personal twitter account. (Which is not a news feed, dimwit. She didn't misquote what Trump said. Gay didn't alter what Trump said. She just left out the next thing he said. But YOU actually misquoted--selectively edited-- her sentence and think it's just fine.)

What upsets johnny about Gay's 'edited' (a verbatim Trump quotation, though without his followup comment) on her personal twitter feed (which is not a news report and which johnforbes doesn't even read) and pretends that her personal opinion on a twitter feed is the same as a New York Times news article that included Trump's entire comment. It isn't. But apparently johnfibs doesn't read the New York Times any more than he reads twitter.

johnforbes doesn't appear to actually read ANYTHING but propaganda from his handlers' daily slop trough. His opening comment is a plagiarized quotation from his handlers' dishonest article, which he didn't bother to question or look into himself. He just swilled it down without question.

I'm shocked that Clown called that girl Gay gay.

Whether she is gay like Clown, or straight as an arrow like me, does not matter.

My relentless fairness requires that we judge her remarks based on their merit, and since they had no merit they should be dismissed as leftist blather.

I told you johnny couldn't see the irony in his dishonest post that blatantly edited what Gay said in his thread charging blatant editing of Trump's post.

johnny also doesn't see the irony in his criticism of Gay for posting a verbatim quotation from Trump.

I remain shocked that Clown called that girl Gay gay.

Whether she is gay like Clown, or straight as an arrow like me, does not matter.

My relentless fairness requires that we judge her remarks based on their merit, and since they had no merit they should be dismissed as leftist blather.

So undoubtedly your alleged "relentless fairness" holds Trump's thousands of misstatements to be Republican blather?

My sense of fairness -- as intrinsic as it is relentless -- requires me to note that many of Clown's postings are indeed leftist blather.

I don't get in a lather over his blather, but rather add a smatter of my rational patter.

I'll take that pathetic slithering as a "Yes" to my previous question.

Trump did indeed produce a lot of rightist blather. At least we're agreed on that.

I said what I said, not what others say I said.

To make it clear:

My sense of fairness -- as intrinsic as it is relentless -- requires me to note that many of Clown's postings are indeed leftist blather.

I don't get in a lather over his blather, but rather add a smatter of my rational patter.

"I said what I said, not what others say I said."-johnforbes

johnny, virtually EVERY post you make about me is you ("others") saying what you pretend I said instead of quoting anything I actually said, because you can never refute anything I actually say.


"My sense of fairness -- as intrinsic as it is relentless -- requires me to note that many of His Lordship's postings are indeed leftist blather."-johnfibs

To make it clear, that's NOT what you said. You first said "My relentless fairness requires that we judge her remarks based on their merit, and since they had no merit they should be dismissed as leftist blather." That's what you actually said and that's what I commented on.

So if you judge someone's remarks based on their merit, then Trump's many falsehoods (which have no merit because they are demonstrably false) must also be blather, and "rightist blather" at that.

In other words, my characterization of your position is completely accurate. If you consider remarks without merit from Gay to be "leftist blather" then to be fair you must consider the thousands of statements made by Trump to be "rightist blather."

See? if you wouldn't keep lying about what you said, you wouldn't get yourself into these untenable predicaments, dimwit.

I did judge Mara Gay's dumb remarks based upon their dumbness.

With equal fairness, I only condemn those remarks of Clown's which are a) dumb and b) worthy of condemnation and c) are devoid on intrinsic merit.

See? Whenever johnforbes realizes he made a fool of himself, he attacks the messenger, as if that somehow makes his ignorant foolishness a winning argument.

It doesn't, dimwit. It just proves my point for me.

I have never attacked Clown personally for his many and various flaws, his faults, his weak arguments, his faults, his Achilles heels, his negative points, and the plethora of problems with his pedestrian postings.

One thing we can always rely upon with johnforbes, and that his endless, foolish, impotent ad hominem blather.

He's got nothin' as always.

Seriously, I would never attack Clown for his pot belly, bald pate, yellow teeth, or enormous feet.

Instead, I deal with the many and various flaws in his reasoning.

"Instead, I deal with the many and various flaws in his reasoning."-johnfibs

You can never refute a thing I say, dimwit. You have yet to post a rational argument against anything I post.

You go for ad hominem attacks instead because intellectually you've got nothin'.

All kidding aside, there are plenty of reasons to attack Clown -- his pot belly, bald pate, yellow teeth, or enormous feet.

Instead, I deal with the many and various flaws in his reasoning.

johnny, whining impotently and running away is not 'dealing' with any imaginary flaws in my reasoning.

It's merely being a partisan pussy.

Clown is being needlessly harsh on himself by calling himself a "partisan pussy."

No, he is more socialst sissy than that.

As always, this post was compelled by my relentless sense of fairness and objectivity and neutrality.