Fake News

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Monty: Breitbart faces no repercussions for their poor opinions.
Monty's definition of repercussions: Loss of respect.
Breitbart has lost (or maybe never had) Monty's respect yet says they have never faced it.

Is that supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha?' Because, it is deeply confused.

I guess I could have been more elaborate and said "loss of respect, or failure to earn respect," so, you got me, I guess. 'Tis true, no one at Breitbart was ever able to earn my respect the way many op-ed writers at National Review, or Reason, or WSJ have. Congratulations, you are very clever.

Also, not Monte.

I think you meant alas not Monte.

Them castle tours do seem pretty awesome.

But, I would have to be a lame Englishman instead of a rad-ass, freedom lovin', gun totin', brass-balled American. No thank you.

[Montegriffo]

Is that supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha?' Because, it is deeply confused.

I guess I could have been more elaborate and said "loss of respect, or failure to earn respect," so, you got me, I guess. 'Tis true, no one at Breitbart was ever able to earn my respect the way many op-ed writers at National Review, or Reason, or WSJ have. Congratulations, you are very clever.

Also, not Monte.

I think you meant alas not Monte.

Them castle tours do seem pretty awesome.

But, I would have to be a lame Englishman instead of a rad-ass, freedom lovin', gun totin', brass-balled American. No thank you.

Had to take my car to Bungay for its annual inspection last week. I had an hour to kill so I went and had a look around the castle. Not been there for 20 years. Bigger than I remembered but not much of the keep left.
It is owned by the people of Bungay and run by a trust. I'm going to volunteer next spring when they restart removing the ivy.
Most of the site is unexcavated and last time they had a dig they found the draw bridge counterweight slot under the entrance.
Still, you wouldn't want any of that lame old rubbish I'm sure.
Not when you've got guns n freedom...

[PartyOf5]

Loss of respect.
It is usually poor. Ask me how to determine if it ain't.

Monty: Breitbart faces no repercussions for their poor opinions.
Monty's definition of repercussions: Loss of respect.
Breitbart has lost (or maybe never had) Monty's respect yet says they have never faced it.

Is that supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha?' Because, it is deeply confused.

I guess I could have been more elaborate and said "loss of respect, or failure to earn respect," so, you got me, I guess. 'Tis true, no one at Breitbart was ever able to earn my respect the way many op-ed writers at National Review, or Reason, or WSJ have. Congratulations, you are very clever.

Also, not Monte.

Ok, let's call it Monta then. Mixed up posters. I even tried to be nice by using Monty instead of Monte. Oops.

It's not a gotcha, but you did contradict yourself. They can't be free of repercussions when by your own definition they faced those repercussions from you.

[Speaker to Animals]

Mounty works too.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Monty: Breitbart faces no repercussions for their poor opinions.
Monty's definition of repercussions: Loss of respect.
Breitbart has lost (or maybe never had) Monty's respect yet says they have never faced it.

Is that supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha?' Because, it is deeply confused.

I guess I could have been more elaborate and said "loss of respect, or failure to earn respect," so, you got me, I guess. 'Tis true, no one at Breitbart was ever able to earn my respect the way many op-ed writers at National Review, or Reason, or WSJ have. Congratulations, you are very clever.

Also, not Monte.

Ok, let's call it Monta then. Mixed up posters. I even tried to be nice by using Monty instead of Monte. Oops.

It's not a gotcha, but you did contradict yourself. They can't be free of repercussions when by your own definition they faced those repercussions from you.

Is there a point to this misguided pedantry?

My (obvious, unless you are being willfully obtuse) contention is that online opinion blogging is shitty, and it is shitty because their respective audiences will apologize for their shittiness.

You seem to be working hard to attack that position, so attack it, if you like. This quasi-tu quoque line is boring, and doesn't address the issue.

[PartyOf5]

Is there a point to this misguided pedantry?

My (obvious, unless you are being willfully obtuse) contention is that online opinion blogging is shitty, and it is shitty because their respective audiences will apologize for their shittiness.

You seem to be working hard to attack that position, so attack it, if you like. This quasi-tu quoque line is boring, and doesn't address the issue.

So boring you can't stop responding.

OK then, prove all online opinion blogging is shitty and that it is that way because their audiences apologize for it. Please this time try not to disprove your claims in the process of trying to prove them.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You are right.

Online opinion blogging is stellar, full of insight and accurate information.

From now on, some rando from the Root or Salon popping off about some crap should be viewed as a sufficient argument in favor of a position 'round here.

[PartyOf5]

You are right.

Smartest thing you've written yet.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Smartest thing you've written yet.

[TheReal_ND]

Praising anyone at NRO or WSJ makes one lose all credibility to mine eyes. Random anonymous posters on 4chan have more integrity then those swill sloppers.