Is FOX Covering MurdochGate?

[GHook93]

That is where I heard about it and I was shocked about what they were doing!

 

[MarcATL]

That is where I heard about it and I was shocked about what they were doing!

Shocked...SHOCKED I tell you!!

 

[California Girl]

Well, I actually gave him some points - because I felt sorry for his dumb ass, and I am honestly a nice guy - but he sends me a message ROTFLHMFAO - so I will be regrettably taking those back. So since this is the "attitude" of this racist prick, please feel free to neg rep his unappreciative racist ass.

Exhibit A:

Your Honor, how likely is it that a poster who has on more than one occasion, in fact, on many occasions referred to me as a racist and has only derogatory words and messages for me?

How likely is it that such a person INTENDED to rep me for anything I posted?

Is it not more likely that the subject INTENDED to neg rep me, but instead made a George Bush-type buffoonish mistake and repped me instead, but is trying to save face?

I rest my case.

Actually, knowing Warrior, it is very likely that he intended it. He could easily have removed it and changed it to a neg. He knows that. I used to feel sorry for you too, until I realized that you are a mindless hack racist POS. Most of us live and learn.... sadly, you choose only the former and completely avoid the latter.

 

[California Girl]

That is where I heard about it and I was shocked about what they were doing!

If you really want to know what's going down, I suggest you read the UK media. The BBC, and Telegraph are giving some very balanced views. Avoid the Guardian... they're going for the left wing biased moral high ground - and several of their reports have since been found to be wild speculation and bullshit. Go figure.

 

[Warrior102]

I know we're not supposed to re-post PM's in the public view, but this MarcATL dude's PM's to me - wow!

Hopefully this guy isn't allowed outside his trailer without some sort of medical escort.

You can post my RESPONSES to you if I can post your INITIATED messages to me.

Deal??

I'll simply summarize here, racist - you posted earlier in this thread words to the effect that you stomped a person who drives a motorcyle and took the law into your own hands.

How Democratic.

I offered the next time you want to do so - look me up.

So, what's the problem?

 

[Warrior102]

Well, I actually gave him some points - because I felt sorry for his dumb ass, and I am honestly a nice guy - but he sends me a message ROTFLHMFAO - so I will be regrettably taking those back. So since this is the "attitude" of this racist prick, please feel free to neg rep his unappreciative racist ass.

Exhibit A:

Your Honor, how likely is it that a poster who has on more than one occasion, in fact, on many occasions referred to me as a racist and has only derogatory words and messages for me?

How likely is it that such a person INTENDED to rep me for anything I posted?

Is it not more likely that the subject INTENDED to neg rep me, but instead made a George Bush-type buffoonish mistake and repped me instead, but is trying to save face?

I rest my case.

Actually, knowing Warrior, it is very likely that he intended it. He could easily have removed it and changed it to a neg. He knows that. I used to feel sorry for you too, until I realized that you are a mindless hack racist POS. Most of us live and learn.... sadly, you choose only the former and completely avoid the latter.

I'll just take it back tomorrow.

No problem.

This guy is a total creep.

Seriously.

SCARY!!!! to believe people like him are allowed OUTSIDE.

I have NEVER put anyone on ignore on this forum - but this nutcase has just earned it. NOT WORTH IT!

These are the types of individuals I warn my children about.

Adios Marc. You need some serious help.

 

[MarcATL]

That is where I heard about it and I was shocked about what they were doing!

If you really want to know what's going down, I suggest you read the UK media. The BBC, and Telegraph are giving some very balanced views. Avoid the Guardian... they're going for the left wing biased moral high ground - and several of their reports have since been found to be wild speculation and bullshit. Go figure.

So all UK media is pretty much law, except one?

Really?

I smell BS.

Got any links to substantiate your wild and highly speculative claims?

 

[Warrior102]

This message is hidden because MarcATL is on your ignore list.


Ah.... as refreshing as a dip in the pool!!!

 

[MarcATL]

Exhibit A:

Your Honor, how likely is it that a poster who has on more than one occasion, in fact, on many occasions referred to me as a racist and has only derogatory words and messages for me?

How likely is it that such a person INTENDED to rep me for anything I posted?

Is it not more likely that the subject INTENDED to neg rep me, but instead made a George Bush-type buffoonish mistake and repped me instead, but is trying to save face?

I rest my case.

Actually, knowing Warrior, it is very likely that he intended it. He could easily have removed it and changed it to a neg. He knows that. I used to feel sorry for you too, until I realized that you are a mindless hack racist POS. Most of us live and learn.... sadly, you choose only the former and completely avoid the latter.

I'll just take it back tomorrow.

No problem.

This guy is a total creep.

Seriously.

SCARY!!!! to believe people like him are allowed OUTSIDE.

I have NEVER put anyone on ignore on this forum - but this nutcase has just earned it. NOT WORTH IT!

These are the types of individuals I warn my children about.

Adios Marc. You need some serious help.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Another WEAK-MINDED, mentally abused, far RW poster bites the dust.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!

*cuts notch in belt*

 

[California Girl]

That is where I heard about it and I was shocked about what they were doing!

If you really want to know what's going down, I suggest you read the UK media. The BBC, and Telegraph are giving some very balanced views. Avoid the Guardian... they're going for the left wing biased moral high ground - and several of their reports have since been found to be wild speculation and bullshit. Go figure.

So all UK media is pretty much law, except one?

Really?

I smell BS.

Got any links to substantiate your wild and highly speculative claims?

Well, it was the Guardian that started the claim that Gordon Brown's phone was hacked for information about his son's illness.... turned out not to be true. Usually, the Guardian (albeit left leaning) is quite balanced and at least accurate in its reporting. Sadly, it is running with rumor rather than confirming it before running.

At the hearings today, the MPs were actually using the Guardian's story as a basis for their questioning of police officers.... until the Senior Officer leading the current investigation pointed out that it was not a good idea to be basing their questions of things that had not been proven as factually accurate. Embarrassing - for the MPs and for the Guardian.

I'm sure you can verify anything I've said.... but I'm not gonna spoon feed you. After your pitiful 'are Fox covering this story' - it is pointless to provide you with fact.... you're not smart enough to follow what is actually happening.

OK.... I feel like I should spoon feed Marc..... so here....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/the-sun-gordon-brown-son

News International said the individual had come to the Sun voluntarily as he wished to highlight the plight of those with the disease, adding that he had provided "a written affidavit" confirming this.

^^^^ That is the key sentence.

 

[California Girl]

This message is hidden because MarcATL is on your ignore list.


Ah.... as refreshing as a dip in the pool!!!

I personally don't have him on ignore... but usually I just skim past his partisan whackery... I find his posts to be of little or no substance.

But I'll give you one thing.... he's a racist little creep.

 

[Trajan]

If not, why not?

What are they covering if not this?

This is international news.

I thought Wallace said that they cover "the other side of the story?"

So what's the "other" side of this story?

Anyone?

why ask us? go check......

 

[MarcATL]

If you really want to know what's going down, I suggest you read the UK media. The BBC, and Telegraph are giving some very balanced views. Avoid the Guardian... they're going for the left wing biased moral high ground - and several of their reports have since been found to be wild speculation and bullshit. Go figure.

So all UK media is pretty much law, except one?

Really?

I smell BS.

Got any links to substantiate your wild and highly speculative claims?

Well, it was the Guardian that started the claim that Gordon Brown's phone was hacked for information about his son's illness.... turned out not to be true. Usually, the Guardian (albeit left leaning) is quite balanced and at least accurate in its reporting. Sadly, it is running with rumor rather than confirming it before running.

At the hearings today, the MPs were actually using the Guardian's story as a basis for their questioning of police officers.... until the Senior Officer leading the current investigation pointed out that it was not a good idea to be basing their questions of things that had not been proven as factually accurate. Embarrassing - for the MPs and for the Guardian.

I'm sure you can verify anything I've said.... but I'm not gonna spoon feed you. After your pitiful 'are Fox covering this story' - it is pointless to provide you with fact.... you're not smart enough to follow what is actually happening.

OK.... I feel like I should spoon feed Marc..... so here....

The Sun denies accessing medical records of Gordon Brown's son | Media | The Guardian

News International said the individual had come to the Sun voluntarily as he wished to highlight the plight of those with the disease, adding that he had provided "a written affidavit" confirming this.

^^^^ That is the key sentence.

You dummy.

News International has denied accessing the medical records of Gordon Brown's four-month-old son Fraser, insisting the Sun newspaper discovered he had cystic fibrosis from a member of the public.

A Guardian News & Media spokesperson said: "The Guardian report on News International targeting Gordon Brown stated that 'details from his infant son's medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child's serious illness'. We did not specify who obtained the private information or how it was passed to the Sun, but their decision to publish the story clearly caused Gordon Brown and his family considerable distress."

A leading media lawyer told the Guardian that News International still needed to explain exactly how it had come by the news of Fraser Brown's health.

Clearly its a he-said-she-said as far as International is concerned. Seems to me they are trying to save their butts by any means, including lying.

But, here's the bottom line...the news of the boy's illness was ILLEGALLY leaked out, and it DIDN'T come from the Guardian.

So here you are....LYING for the REICHT...as usual.

How despicable and utterly disgusting!

*spits*

 

[California Girl]

If not, why not?

What are they covering if not this?

This is international news.

I thought Wallace said that they cover "the other side of the story?"

So what's the "other" side of this story?

Anyone?

why ask us? go check......

He wasn't interested in facts. He thought Fox was ignoring it. Turns out he was wrong... yea, I was shocked too... Marc - wrong? I so did not see that coming. Anyway, now.... for some reason that I haven't figured out yet - I'm an uber-partisan hack because I DONT watch Fox.

So, in truth, Marc is a fucking nutter, as always.

 

[California Girl]

So all UK media is pretty much law, except one?

Really?

I smell BS.

Got any links to substantiate your wild and highly speculative claims?

Well, it was the Guardian that started the claim that Gordon Brown's phone was hacked for information about his son's illness.... turned out not to be true. Usually, the Guardian (albeit left leaning) is quite balanced and at least accurate in its reporting. Sadly, it is running with rumor rather than confirming it before running.

At the hearings today, the MPs were actually using the Guardian's story as a basis for their questioning of police officers.... until the Senior Officer leading the current investigation pointed out that it was not a good idea to be basing their questions of things that had not been proven as factually accurate. Embarrassing - for the MPs and for the Guardian.

I'm sure you can verify anything I've said.... but I'm not gonna spoon feed you. After your pitiful 'are Fox covering this story' - it is pointless to provide you with fact.... you're not smart enough to follow what is actually happening.

OK.... I feel like I should spoon feed Marc..... so here....

The Sun denies accessing medical records of Gordon Brown's son | Media | The Guardian



^^^^ That is the key sentence.

You dummy.

A Guardian News & Media spokesperson said: "The Guardian report on News International targeting Gordon Brown stated that 'details from his infant son's medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child's serious illness'. We did not specify who obtained the private information or how it was passed to the Sun, but their decision to publish the story clearly caused Gordon Brown and his family considerable distress."

A leading media lawyer told the Guardian that News International still needed to explain exactly how it had come by the news of Fraser Brown's health.

Clearly its a he-said-she-said as far as International is concerned. Seems to me they are trying to save their butts by any means, including lying. Here's the bottom line...the news of the boy's illness was ILLEGALLY leaked out, and it DIDN'T come from the Guardian.

So here you are....LYING for the REICHT...as usual.

How despicable and utterly disgusting!

*spits*

Oh, God.... I really do have to explain every single thing to you, don't I?

The Sun has a 'sworn affidavit' - that's a legal statement.... from the person (who is not a journalist, or a private investigator but is someone who also has a son with the same condition as Brown's son)...... and it was he who gave the story to the Sun. So, the Guardian was wrong. Even the fucking Guardian say they were wrong.... and still you defend the Guardian.

How.

Much.

More.

Stupid.

Can.

You.

Be?

Seriously.

 

[MarcATL]

So why is a media lawyer stating that International still has to explain how they came about that information?

A leading media lawyer told the Guardian that News International still needed to explain exactly how it had come by the news of Fraser Brown's health.

Can you post exactly the words, paragraph or sentence where you came about that bogus information dummy?

Please and thanks.

 

[California Girl]

I'm just sitting watching an interview with a Guardian editor.... apologizing for their error. But I guess he's a right wing plant....

 

[California Girl]

So why is a media lawyer stating that International still have to explain how they came about that information?

Can you post exactly the words, paragraph or sentence where you came about that bogus information dummy?

Please and thanks.

No. You want to be informed.... inform yourself, you lazy little shit. I'm watching them discuss it with a Guardian Editor.... even he said they got it wrong. Please carry on with your partisan hackery, idiot boy.

 

[whitehall]

What do we know about the privacy laws in the UK as they relate to cell phone conversations? We don't even have a handle on hacking cell phone conversations in the US. Around Christmas 1996 democrat congressman Jim McDermott released the contents of a illegally obtained cell phone conversation between then Speaker Gingrich and others to the NY Times and the Atlanta Journal. No charges were ever brought against McDermott or democrat Thurman of Fla who obtained the illegally recorded tapes. Now the left is trying to create outrage about a tabloid in the UK that hacked cell phone conversations? Forget about it lefties, the fake hysteria ain't gonna fly.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm just sitting watching an interview with a Guardian editor.... apologizing for their error. But I guess he's a right wing plant....

Where? What network? Names?

Again...why is a media lawyer from the UK stating that International STILL has to explain exactly how they came about that information?

This is from the link YOU provided BTW.

You really need to get some sense about you and learn to read.

Dummy.