Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > This is the one I had in mind:
> >
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200501250001
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200502010001
> >
> > The first one introduces the topic and shows what Barbara Boxer really 
> > said and what he said she said.  In the second one callers try to 
> > correct his mistake.  He yells at the caller, takes a really superior 
> > dominant tone and, well, you can see what he says in the last 
> > paragraph.  The crazy thing is that the caller was definitely right and 
> > O'Reilly was definitely wrong.  I'm not saying he was lying because he 
> > might have been confused, but look at how off base he can be and still 
> > have that smug, superior tone.
>
> I think that much of this is over-zealous hyperbole rather than out and 
> out lying.  But I do agree that with the second example, he did show 
> himself to be a bit of a jerk.  And it does tend to corroborate the 
> Peabody/Polk award event.  It looks like he doesn't take to admitting 
> his own mistakes easily. (A common fault amongst many people, it should 
> be said.)


I don't know if he was lying or just remembering incorrectly.  I think 
probably the latter, but he gets so confident, even when he is clearly 
wrong, that he gets really indignant when anyone disagrees.

This is one of the things, if not the only thing, that is making O'Reilly 
a big star:  His loud-mouthed angry style.  It keeps people watching and 
talking about him.  They write whole books about him.  He makes $10 
million per year.  It isn't because he knows his stuff, it's because he's 
such a pompous loud mouth.  It's so extreme that you have to watch, just 
like you have to look at a car wreck when you drive past it on the 
highway.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion