- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For those who haven't heard of Frank DiPrima.........Let me Introduce AggieHank's boy
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:20 am to Decatur
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:20 am to Decatur
quote:
Who is Frank DiPrima and why do you care so much that he contributes to the Daily Kos blog?
Well.
If you and I were debating in a thread and I rebutted you by giving you a quote............but didn't say where the quote came from............and then, when you pressed me on the quote, I STILL didn't source it, but told you that the person I got it from was credible and trustworthy.........and THEN..........you figured out that I got the quote from a guy whose sole outlet for writing was on Rushlimbaugh.com and he basically ONLY wrote HARD right columns............and when you busted me.............I disappeared............I suspect you'd call me out for it.
1
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:22 am to Jorts R Us
quote:My point wasn't that you were doing it. The point was, not having a post that outs one as liberal(or conservative) depending on the poster, isn't really proof because, the internet is FULL of people faking the funk in order to play "reasonable man" on boards.
Well, no offense, but that's what Hank does.
Right
Been going on forever
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:22 am to roadGator
quote:
Jorts is my favorite FSU Golden Chief.
At least you didn't say Dawg.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:23 am to Jorts R Us
I wouldn't do that to you.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:23 am to Decatur
quote:
Decatur
See, there’s a difference between you and Hank.
You’re as sleazy as they come, but at least you don’t even try to hide it. In a grudging way, I can sort of respect that.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:24 am to ShortyRob
You think this guy’s professional peak is writing blog entries for teh Daily Kos?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:24 am to Godfather1
Come again?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:24 am to Decatur
quote:Nope
You think this guy’s professional peak is writing blog entries for teh Daily Kos?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:27 am to Decatur
quote:Based on the little I've seen, it appears he's already overachieved.
You think this guy’s professional peak is writing blog entries for teh Daily Kos?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:27 am to ShortyRob
Fair enough, Rob.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:27 am to ShortyRob
So what is wrong if someone thinks highly of this guy?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:29 am to Decatur
He said you are sleazy
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:32 am to ShortyRob
This is a hard L for my Aggy Hank. I must confess.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:37 am to TbirdSpur2010
I now see Mr. DiPrima used to be Senior VP and General Counsel for Playboy.
Admiration [growing]
Admiration [growing]
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:39 am to Decatur
He may let you hold it in your mouth to further express your admiration.
Tweet him
Tweet him
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:57 am to Decatur
quote:
So what is wrong if someone thinks highly of this guy?
Cool, now go ahead and sing the praises of Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. as unbiased sources as it relates to the issue with Hank at hand.....
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:58 am to Decatur
quote:
You think this guy’s professional peak is writing blog entries for teh Daily Kos?
Do you think he is unbiased?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:07 am to oogabooga68
Well he obviously has political opinions but so do most people.
I can admire people that have different political opinions than myself. Nothing wrong with that.
I can admire people that have different political opinions than myself. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:22 am to Bourre
quote:Good Lord, why do you people keep saying this. One cannot be a "fake conservative" unless one pretends to BE a "conservative." EVERY time someone posts this comment (and it happens almost weekly, and it has been YOU on more than one occasion, as I recall), I affirmatively CORRECT the assertion that I have EVER claimed to be a "conservative." In fact, I usually ask the poster to show any post in which I have CLAIMED to be a "conservative." The poster ALWAYS disappears, and I predict that you will do the same. At a minimum, you will post some comment you consider to be pithy, but you will NOT link to a responsive post from me, because no post EXISTS in which I claim to be a "conservative."
lying piece of shite who is a fake conservative
I am a libertarian. If one is limited by simplistic, right/left analysis, my views are SLIGHTLY right of center, on average, and most posters here would probably call me a RINO as a result. I generally vote GOP about 90% of the time, because I DO NOT identify with the Dems, and the GOP is marginally better. MARGINALLY.
On this forum, I normally post from a position Left of this forum's mainstream, because probably 90% OF THE COUNTRY is left of this forum's mainstream. Right of Center and left of the nutcase extremists is STILL Right of Center.
I understand that you do not grasp this. You think you belong to some silent majority. You do not.
Further, it is simply not remotely entertaining to post "me too" comments on the "conservative" positions with which I am in agreement. I DO post on a number of "right" issues (e.g. opposition to deficit spending and tax cuts absent concommitant spending cuts), but those positions do not align with the populist demagogue sitting in the White House, so those views get their share of denigrating comments here as well. To me, those comments demonstrate that the poster in question is NOT a "conservative" either, but rather a mindless sheep.
The "lying" nonsense is ridiculous. I do not lie. When I have been called a "liar" on this forum, I have REPEATEDLY asked for the accuser to prove the veracity of his allegations. In the rare instances when I receive a response, it almost uniformly comes down NOT to a false statement of fact, but rather to a differing INTERPRETATION of the same facts.
Again, I DO hold views that differ significantly from the forum mainstream. But the brain trust that constitutes the majority of the posters on this forum will insist until their dying days that any opinion that varies from their own constitutes a "lie." I honestly cannot decide whether this is tough rhetoric from a bunch of online tough-guys, or whether they are simply too stupid to understand the difference.
This DiPrima issue is a PERFECT example. I made an offhand comment about the DiPrima/Kelley story with no mention of names and no cite, BECAUSE I assumed that pretty much everyone was ALREADY familiar with the story. It has been mentioned many times here and elsewhere. If I made a mistake in this entire matter, it lies in making the assumption that this story was NOT something new to anyone reading it. Clearly Ooga was clueless (which actually does NOT surprise me), but it appears that Shorty was also unaware. I generally consider him to be fairly knowledgeable, so perhaps the story was not as widespread as I had thought.
In any case, my first reference to it was a damned throw-away comment, not a research paper or an appellate brief. Candidly, at that point I did not even remember the names of the players, and I certainly did not remember the outlet in which the story was originally published.
Then little Ooga started his usual pestering. It is his schtick, which is why I liken him to a rat terrier with a chicken bone. So I ran a quick search to get the names. The first result was NOT the Daily Kos, but it contained the "dumbest student" quote. I did not read the entire article, which MAY WELL have referenced that publication. I do not know, because I did not read the whole thing. I simply did a page search for the word "student," then block-copied the language containing the quote and the names of the players. I didn't read any of the other articles, either. I was familiar with the quote, and I had found the names of the players for Ooga.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:22 am to AggieHank86
The next several pages consisted of Ooga insisting that that the DePrima statement was some sort of third-hand rumor. I STILL do not understand where he gets this nonsense. There were TWO players. Kelley (allegedly) said something, and DiPrima (demonstrably) repeated it.
For those several pages, it was basically me and Ooga, with him failing to grasp that DiPrima's repetition of Kelley's (alleged) statement was was a "first-hand" account that the statement was MADE. If the question is "Did Kelley say X" (and not whether "X" is true), the statement would not even be hearsay and would be entirely admissible. If the question is "Was Trump a terrible student," the statement WOULD be hearsay and would likely not be admissible. Outside a court of law, people rely upon hearsay to some extent every day. And this forum is NOT a court of law.
Was DePrima's account a FALSE one? Who knows? I doubt it, but I acknowledged the possibility. Many posters are utterly convinced that it IS false. Such is life. But I simply do not understand how ANYONE could claim that someone is "lying" when that person openly acknowledges that the information he is conveying MAY be false. It truly boggles the mind.
Repeating an allegation that I believe to be accurate (while acknowledging the possibility that it may not be) is NOT "lying." It is simply voicing an OPINION that differs from your own. Most people do not have difficultly grasping this distinction, which is why I tend to lean toward the "internet tough-guy" analysis of these "liar" allegations. I simply have difficulty acceptig that any adult could actually BE that stupid.
YES, I said that I had no reason to disbelieve DiPrima. I did not praise him, and I did not claim any ideological kinship with him. I simply did not start from the premise that ANYONE is a liar, and I still do not.
Enter Shorty. As I recall, it was HIS involvement which led me to actually run a detailed search on DiPrima. I had never done so before this weekend, because I had no reason to do so. His repetition of the Kelley statement had been nothing more than a chuckle-worthy anecdote. One guy repeating something that a deceased friend had told him in the past.
So, I learned that DiPrima makes the occasional Op-Ed type contribution on the Daily Kos. I read ONE of his other articles (about the Schultz candidacy), and it made clear several things. First, he is indeed very liberal. Second, he dislikes Trump intensely. Third, he is knowledgeable, intelligent and articulate ... regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his views. Yes, I understand that many also have difficulty accepting that a political opponent can BE both intelligent and articulate. I do not. In my view, the intelligent and articulate opponent is actually more dangerous than the idiots like AOC and Ilhan Omar ... who I view as more of a clown show than anything.
In any case, Shorty constructed a sand castle in which I had full knowledge of everything about DiPrima's background and intentionally sought to hide that information. Nothing could be further from the truth, though I have no doubt that he will insist that his sand castle is built of solid stone and that many sheep will "baaaaa" that he is entirely correct.
I will NOT call Shorty a "liar," because he is NOT "lying." He is expressing an OPINION. It is an erroneous opinion, but that is a different matter entirely.
But his obsession with this exchange has truly become entertaining. He went so far as counting the number of outlets that published the story and claiming that I was a "liar" for asserting that the story had appeared in "many" publications.
It HAS appeared in many publications, but Shorty does seem to be correct that most (perhaps even "all") make reference to the original publication in the Daily Kos. I recalled reading one article from some Long Island publication that made reference to the story appearing on DiPrima's FaceBook and to the fact that such publication had conducted a telephone interview with DiPrima regarding the story. I went back and found it her: LINK
Yes, that article also makes reference to the Kos story. I do not recall whether I noticed the reference, though I perhaps should have assigned it more significance if I had done so, because I classify both Mother Jones and the Daily Kos EXACTLY as I classify Gateway Pundit and the Daily Caller ... extremist rags. I would have expected a anti-Trump outlet (rather than GP or DC) to publish a statement unflattering of Trump (e.g. the DiPrima item), which is PROBABLY why I did not attribute much significance to it. Sue me.
But back to Shorty's obsession. NOW he is claiming that I hid in the bushes and waited for him to go offline before posting something. Silliness. He is a relatively bright guy, but I hardly find him intimidating. He also claimed that I was "lurking" without posting, just waiting for the opportunity to pounce upon him in his absence. For this, he provided the "evidence" that my profile showed me to be online.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I NEVER "logoff" on this site. When I am done, I close the Chrome window on my desktop or simply flip the cover on my iPad. Both are set to "remember" or keep me siged on or whatever the term may be, so that I need not re-enter a password whenever I return. For all I know, my profile may well indicate that I am online when I have been sound asleep for hours. Much like I do not care whether Shorty is online, I have never cared enough about this issue to seek an answer to that question.
In any case, Shorty got obsessive, did some research, and drew some conclusions. He is mistaken, but I will not call him a "liar." Oddly obsessive, but not a liar by any means.
Lastly, I am entertained by Ooga's claims that HE and Shorty "owned" me. Setting aside the question of whether anyone was "owned," anything that was accomplished was accomplished solely by Shorty, his brains, and his research. Ooga's contribution reminded me of Chester trailing along behind Spike.
For those several pages, it was basically me and Ooga, with him failing to grasp that DiPrima's repetition of Kelley's (alleged) statement was was a "first-hand" account that the statement was MADE. If the question is "Did Kelley say X" (and not whether "X" is true), the statement would not even be hearsay and would be entirely admissible. If the question is "Was Trump a terrible student," the statement WOULD be hearsay and would likely not be admissible. Outside a court of law, people rely upon hearsay to some extent every day. And this forum is NOT a court of law.
Was DePrima's account a FALSE one? Who knows? I doubt it, but I acknowledged the possibility. Many posters are utterly convinced that it IS false. Such is life. But I simply do not understand how ANYONE could claim that someone is "lying" when that person openly acknowledges that the information he is conveying MAY be false. It truly boggles the mind.
Repeating an allegation that I believe to be accurate (while acknowledging the possibility that it may not be) is NOT "lying." It is simply voicing an OPINION that differs from your own. Most people do not have difficultly grasping this distinction, which is why I tend to lean toward the "internet tough-guy" analysis of these "liar" allegations. I simply have difficulty acceptig that any adult could actually BE that stupid.
YES, I said that I had no reason to disbelieve DiPrima. I did not praise him, and I did not claim any ideological kinship with him. I simply did not start from the premise that ANYONE is a liar, and I still do not.
Enter Shorty. As I recall, it was HIS involvement which led me to actually run a detailed search on DiPrima. I had never done so before this weekend, because I had no reason to do so. His repetition of the Kelley statement had been nothing more than a chuckle-worthy anecdote. One guy repeating something that a deceased friend had told him in the past.
So, I learned that DiPrima makes the occasional Op-Ed type contribution on the Daily Kos. I read ONE of his other articles (about the Schultz candidacy), and it made clear several things. First, he is indeed very liberal. Second, he dislikes Trump intensely. Third, he is knowledgeable, intelligent and articulate ... regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his views. Yes, I understand that many also have difficulty accepting that a political opponent can BE both intelligent and articulate. I do not. In my view, the intelligent and articulate opponent is actually more dangerous than the idiots like AOC and Ilhan Omar ... who I view as more of a clown show than anything.
In any case, Shorty constructed a sand castle in which I had full knowledge of everything about DiPrima's background and intentionally sought to hide that information. Nothing could be further from the truth, though I have no doubt that he will insist that his sand castle is built of solid stone and that many sheep will "baaaaa" that he is entirely correct.
I will NOT call Shorty a "liar," because he is NOT "lying." He is expressing an OPINION. It is an erroneous opinion, but that is a different matter entirely.
But his obsession with this exchange has truly become entertaining. He went so far as counting the number of outlets that published the story and claiming that I was a "liar" for asserting that the story had appeared in "many" publications.
It HAS appeared in many publications, but Shorty does seem to be correct that most (perhaps even "all") make reference to the original publication in the Daily Kos. I recalled reading one article from some Long Island publication that made reference to the story appearing on DiPrima's FaceBook and to the fact that such publication had conducted a telephone interview with DiPrima regarding the story. I went back and found it her: LINK
Yes, that article also makes reference to the Kos story. I do not recall whether I noticed the reference, though I perhaps should have assigned it more significance if I had done so, because I classify both Mother Jones and the Daily Kos EXACTLY as I classify Gateway Pundit and the Daily Caller ... extremist rags. I would have expected a anti-Trump outlet (rather than GP or DC) to publish a statement unflattering of Trump (e.g. the DiPrima item), which is PROBABLY why I did not attribute much significance to it. Sue me.
But back to Shorty's obsession. NOW he is claiming that I hid in the bushes and waited for him to go offline before posting something. Silliness. He is a relatively bright guy, but I hardly find him intimidating. He also claimed that I was "lurking" without posting, just waiting for the opportunity to pounce upon him in his absence. For this, he provided the "evidence" that my profile showed me to be online.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I NEVER "logoff" on this site. When I am done, I close the Chrome window on my desktop or simply flip the cover on my iPad. Both are set to "remember" or keep me siged on or whatever the term may be, so that I need not re-enter a password whenever I return. For all I know, my profile may well indicate that I am online when I have been sound asleep for hours. Much like I do not care whether Shorty is online, I have never cared enough about this issue to seek an answer to that question.
In any case, Shorty got obsessive, did some research, and drew some conclusions. He is mistaken, but I will not call him a "liar." Oddly obsessive, but not a liar by any means.
Lastly, I am entertained by Ooga's claims that HE and Shorty "owned" me. Setting aside the question of whether anyone was "owned," anything that was accomplished was accomplished solely by Shorty, his brains, and his research. Ooga's contribution reminded me of Chester trailing along behind Spike.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News