General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: MSNBC ELEVATES Rachel Maddow To NEWS ANCHOR [View all]nikto
(3,284 posts)By any measure, your flaccid 2-out-of-six response, accompanied by your understandible
inability to find what doesn't exist on a Google search (I was able to find my particular examples
because they, UH, DO exist. ), was not empirically impressive.
I'm sure you can do better, at least on other topics.
And then, to finish off the job of frying any dignity you had left, you end with a tea-bagger-like
flare of hostility to being gently 1-upped.
There are no pictures of Ms. Maddow (who still does some good things) interviewing Chomsky, Hedges, etc,
BECAUSE SHE NEVER HAD THEM ON HER SHOW.
Again, no histrionics or swearing---- just the truth.
That was my point, and I was able to back it up, 4-2, without complaining about what I couldn't Google, etc.
You come off as needlessly hostile (strictly defense-mechanism reaction), and with
your profanity employed in a falsehood, weak, as well.
Some folks care about truth and accuracy, and sometimes even accept a correction from others (as I did in my 1st response),
while others seem to be far more emotional about just being "right", evidence, or lack of, be damned.
If you can't make a good argument, don't try--You'll just get frustrated and angry,
like this time.
I assume, being a long-timer on DU, you have made some past arguments convincingly,
and posted eloquently on various subjects.
I'm certain I could go find them on Google, as long as they exist.
But truthfully, this was not one of those times for you.