So you probably heard about Jason Collins, the sportsball man who said he was gay last week? And almost everyone said, Oh, that's nice, sure, except for the usual crowd of jerks? And of course we all know that Collins was not really the first gay sportsball man, or even the first gay sportsballer or
So in other words, because she didn't include every possible qualifier, known or unknown variables, or check to see if Venus was in the Second House she's shading the truth.
Yeah, that "exception" was particular bullshit. She said you "can" be fired for being gay, not that you "must" be fired for being gay.
I saw Martina and Chrissy play doubles at the Fed Cup in Santa Clara a thousand years ago, and it was a transparent demolition of errybody they went up against.
I'm a little drunk, so a little slow. My first reaction to this article (as commented on previously) was along the lines of: "Well, they should have said Mostly True, but there are maybe some details that mean that it's not really All True".
After thinking (slowly) about it for a while, I have come up with a different reaction, which is "Why the fuck is Politifact 'fact-checking' Martina Navratilova? Is she a politician? Is she a 'pundit'? Is she a corporate or organizational spokesperson?".
Basically, she's a private citizen who made a rhetorical claim that is substantially correct.
Fact-checking that claim makes as little sense as fact-checking me if I were to assert that Politifact is a cabal of anal-retentive false-equivalency-sponsoring nit-picking twits. (Probably, they could find some intern in the cabal that wasn't anal-retentive).
I can't speak for all software programmers, but the ones who designed the software for timing my city's traffic lights are pure, 100% unadulterated evil...
I have heard this kind of analysis before, usually when a student is trying to convince me that his or her answer to an essay question deserves more points than the 1 point "Thank you for playing" grade that I gave it.
The alt-text shows up on Snipy's last two posts, after it disappeared elsewhere, and on Alex Ruthrauff's today. Perhaps someone should ask them what they know about these mysterious disappearances.
On the one hand there is someone with facts saying true things. On the other hand there is someone with a Bible saying hate speech. So, for balance, we will say "half true". Journalismism!
I hear you get some nice swag with the Presidential Seal on it. That's what they go for.
So in other words, because she didn't include every possible qualifier, known or unknown variables, or check to see if Venus was in the Second House she's shading the truth.
And people get paid for this drivel?
Snopes only does True, Partly True, and False. Their credibility (which I rate highly) is based on rigorous adherence to those definitions.
Tom was a busy, busy guy.
Yeah, that "exception" was particular bullshit. She said you "can" be fired for being gay, not that you "must" be fired for being gay.
No. Martina was the one that silently carved her opponents into rashers of bacon.
I saw Martina and Chrissy play doubles at the Fed Cup in Santa Clara a thousand years ago, and it was a transparent demolition of errybody they went up against.
Incredibly good (and I mean that in the sense of "literally unbelievably good") as she was, she's 56 now. So, no.
I'm a little drunk, so a little slow. My first reaction to this article (as commented on previously) was along the lines of: "Well, they should have said Mostly True, but there are maybe some details that mean that it's not really All True".
After thinking (slowly) about it for a while, I have come up with a different reaction, which is "Why the fuck is Politifact 'fact-checking' Martina Navratilova? Is she a politician? Is she a 'pundit'? Is she a corporate or organizational spokesperson?".
Basically, she's a private citizen who made a rhetorical claim that is substantially correct.
Fact-checking that claim makes as little sense as fact-checking me if I were to assert that Politifact is a cabal of anal-retentive false-equivalency-sponsoring nit-picking twits. (Probably, they could find some intern in the cabal that wasn't anal-retentive).
I can't speak for all software programmers, but the ones who designed the software for timing my city's traffic lights are pure, 100% unadulterated evil...
I have heard this kind of analysis before, usually when a student is trying to convince me that his or her answer to an essay question deserves more points than the 1 point "Thank you for playing" grade that I gave it.
are you lying or just happy to see me?
The alt-text shows up on Snipy's last two posts, after it disappeared elsewhere, and on Alex Ruthrauff's today. Perhaps someone should ask them what they know about these mysterious disappearances.
On the one hand there is someone with facts saying true things. On the other hand there is someone with a Bible saying hate speech. So, for balance, we will say "half true". Journalismism!
4 Pinocchios
no ponies and no alt text- I see the sequester has finally reached yer wonket...