Support NeoGAF

[APF]

Also, *I used the word first*. Whatevery secondary or tertiary definition you were going by means nothing to me.
[...]
Actually you were the one who started that fun with your implication I don't grasp the meaning of the word "gadfly". Turn it around when dictionary.com owns you, that's ok. I won't like you any less.

I'm going by the origin of the word, where the term came from. You're going by what the word has degenerated into. If who "used the word first" wins, my definition wins. A website may have "owned" me partially (like Jon Stewart owns black Republicans?) but history owned you entirely.

"Oh, I can't stand it when people redefine words to suit their meanings, then accuse other people of not knowing what they're talking about."

"Actually, the definition you posted had the meaning I was thinking of. That word has a specific history and has traditionally meant something different than how you are using it."

"NO!! DICTIONARY.COM OWNS YOU!! LA LA LA LA LA"

...


If your criteria of good interviewing skills is based off your assessment of Craig Killborn, I have no further need to debate this point. I do agree that Larry King also sucks.

 

[DaMan121]

I dont intend to get into this discussion past this post, but I'd at least like to bring this to your attention: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories




Whether or not ID is true, I dont care, just wanted to point out your statement is ill-informed.

You are correct. But at the risk of a further derail:
(a) Stephen Meyer isnt even a bilogist, he has a Ph.D in Philosophy of Science. Which incidently reminds me of a funny aside in this ID crap http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
(b) The paper presents exactly ZERO regarding ID theory, spends all its time attacking ( completely without substance) evolution or strawmen like abiogenesis. Its an all round debacle, so much so the editor got the boot. A good analysys of the paper can be found here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html#c7199
(c) There was a paper on Cold Fusion, peer reviewed too, a while back... hmm.. ok, let me preface my earlier statement regarding peer reviewed papers with they have to contain actual SCIENCE!

 

[lilraylewis]

If anyone wants, he can watch the interview here:http://www.onegoodmove.org/1gm/

 

[etiolate]

Hey kids, is your team winning yet?


ps: yah jon gives himself a loophole and he can get away with it as long as he's the hot thing

 

[blahness]

The Daily Show has been rudderless ever since it stopped being about the media, and started being about politics.

IAWTP... its the sole reason i have stopped watching the daily show...

 

[Synth_floyd]

What are you people talking about? That was a really good interview. It was two intelligent people debating the issues civilly (unlike say Crossfire). At the end they just had to agree to disagree. Jon didn't roll over and play dead. The reason why he attacked Bernard Goldberg so much is because Bernard Goldberg is an idiot who wrote a stupid book. Santorum left himself much less open to attack both with the book he wrote and the statements he made during the interview. The interview just went to show that some conservatives actually have some decent ideas that can be backed up rationally. You may not agree with them but they are valid.

 

[explodet]

"... some people thought it sucked, while some people thought it (high pitched) suuuuuuucked..."

:lol

 

[fart]

so, i think he was incredibly angry at a very existential level, but this is a guy who, up to a point, is more likely to channel his anger into subtle wit. it does look and sound like he rolled over, but he brought up some extremely good points, just very calmly. i didn't like how often he sounded like he agreed with santorum's bullshit, but i think he was trying very hard to build a productive argument with the guy, whereas less self control would bring most people with sense to start screaming at him.

still, i think he can definitely tone up the violence without sacrificing professional integrity.

 

[Umpteen]

I'm going by the origin of the word, where the term came from.

I see. I wasn't aware we were supposed to converse in ancient greek and latin on these boards. So, by your argument, the original meanings of all words and phrases supercede those actually assigned to them in our modern language? This seems a little regressive and confusing to me.

Also, let me point out that I used the word first. Therefore your impressive knowledge of the origin of it as a cut down is pretty much void. I used the word. I used it the way it is modernly used. I accept that you know where it came from, and that Socrates used it in a nicer way after the bastard he coined it for died. You win! It is an old word!

Tucker Carlson is still a gadfly

"Oh, I can't stand it when people redefine words to suit their meanings, then accuse other people of not knowing what they're talking about."

I'm just about tired of being misquoted.

I'm just about tired of people who argue their own interpretations of words and then imply I don't know what I'm talking about when I use them correctly.

It is literally one page back. Are you too lazy to quote me?

Originally Posted by APF:

I'm thrilled at your word choice there: Jon Stewart owned a black Republican.


Also, before you try and frame me up as something I'm not, don't omit the qualifying word from my statement. "TOKEN black republican", thus acknowledging the scarcity and the irony of sending a minority to a liberal-slanted show.

You did it here too. AND in the post I'm replying too. This is weak, and I'm actually done with you, but as someone who lives and watches TV in reality I appreciate it if you at least get what I say *right* before you start angrily pounding at your keyboard in an attempt to pass your opinions and parables off as inarguable facts.

 

[APF]

Your problem is you're too busy arguing past me, and for some reason you're uninterested in an honest give-and-take. Anyway yes, I was too lazy to directly quote you. That's why I didn't use blockquotes with attribution, but anonymous "" instead. Because you didn't actually say that. I don't know why it matters to you that you used the word "gadfly" first. My point is that its a word with a certain connotation, and that connotation is not debased by being in your opinion a "secondary definition." The actual primary definition is a kind of fly. We're arguing about the meaning of being a social (political) gadfly, which I gave but you reject for some reason (I think you reject it because to accept it would mean that I could be right about something). Your other point, about black Republicans, or token blacks, or whatever it is you you're trying to say, I didn't follow-up on because I didn't get where you were going.

 

[Socreges]

What are you people talking about? That was a really good interview. It was two intelligent people debating the issues civilly (unlike say Crossfire). At the end they just had to agree to disagree. Jon didn't roll over and play dead. The reason why he attacked Bernard Goldberg so much is because Bernard Goldberg is an idiot who wrote a stupid book. Santorum left himself much less open to attack both with the book he wrote and the statements he made during the interview. The interview just went to show that some conservatives actually have some decent ideas that can be backed up rationally. You may not agree with them but they are valid.

so, i think he was incredibly angry at a very existential level, but this is a guy who, up to a point, is more likely to channel his anger into subtle wit. it does look and sound like he rolled over, but he brought up some extremely good points, just very calmly. i didn't like how often he sounded like he agreed with santorum's bullshit, but i think he was trying very hard to build a productive argument with the guy, whereas less self control would bring most people with sense to start screaming at him.

still, i think he can definitely tone up the violence without sacrificing professional integrity.

IAWTPs

 

[Sergenth]

Jon did about as much as he could do with Santorum. Before this interview, my impression of Santorum was that he was a bit close-minded and probably mental in his religious-legislative fervor. I know of quotes from his book that mention how women should be a little more subserviant to their man than a typical post-suffrage woman. I did not expect a quick, sharp-sensed person who could stay at the edge of the conversation. He didn't quip or try to play the funny game too, but he did acknowledge it all, even though most of it was GOTO 40 REPEAT "Mothers and Fathers are best" RETURN.

Rick Santorum is smart enough to deflect and lead a conversation. Jon was trying to posit ideas and counter-points, but like all successful Republicans, Rick is expert at not facing down the point. With that, he's also good at making the person asking the question seem like a jackass for asking it... if the question is beyond a certain modulating threshold of confrontation. Goldberg was not good at this.

This is why Jon was playing it easy... because getting into the dismissive shit is boring and frustrating -- makes for bad "funny" tv and them Republicans simply don't care what is said contrary to their objectives anyways.

Paraphrased Speech:

Jon: "This is NY -- we're swimming in homosexuality." (what are you going to do about it?)

Rick: "I still believe a mother and a father raise them best." (I'm not going to answer that on your show)

Jon: "But surely two fathers or two mothers can raise them." (soft retort for a soft position)

Rick: "Oh, I'm not saying they can't. I'm just not saying what I'm going to do about it, cause I'm very aware of what your audience would do if I said something they could 100% disagree with and I also know what you think and I'm an expert at dodging all of your argumentative posits. They already clapped really loudly at something you said." (I am not your typical moldy old Republican dood!)

Jon: "You... uh... holy shit you're verbose! See, look at that. I can curse on my show and I know it makes your ass tighten each time." (Neener needer)

Rick: "What, I didn't hear any curse words." (High Block/ Parry/ Retreat - non-confrontational success)

Jon: "Damn, you're good. I like you. Let's solve abortion!" (You're a funny guy Rick.)

 

[Mandark]

fart/Synth_floyd: I don't think he rolled over, so much as he could have been much more pointed. If government's interest in marriage is for the sake of children, should women past menopause be allowed to marry? How does he feel about the sodomy laws that were struck down? What data is he using to draw his conclusions?

Whether or not ID is true, I dont care, just wanted to point out your statement is ill-informed.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Took me 15 seconds on Google.

 

[fart]

yes he could have been more pointed, but i think he realized that the end result would have been the same. santorum came on the show to espouse a very singular idea, and nothing was going to make him reconsider that idea. there are numerous downsides to getting too pointed with someone who is competent, and i think when jon is stuttering "i came from - from..." he's weighing those risks, and what he comes up with is "this is pointless"

 

[Archaix]

This just in! Jon Stewart reads GAF! Either that, or a whole lot of other people had the half-braindead state of mind that I had when I was tired enough to post this thread.

"Everybody, the entire country, abuzz, about my interview last night with Rick Santorum. A real controversy over the relative suckiness of that interview. Some people, thinking it sucked, whereas other people thinking it suuuuuuuuucked. So, tonight, I can assure you. Tonight, Diane Lane is GOING DOWN!"