|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: best quote of the day|
best quote of the day
Posted - 1/2/2014 4:37:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
"If voting actually did any good, it would be illegal."
Hilarious, sadly true.
Posted - 1/2/2014 7:44:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
Sounds obtuse. Who said it, when and where?
Posted - 1/2/2014 9:55:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
Great line. Please tell us where you heard it TODAY; I'd love to hear the speaker/context. BTW, the best Google searches I found were:
'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.'--Mark Twain
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."--Emma Goldman
So it's hardly new. But still a chuckle.
Posted - 1/3/2014 11:22:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
I found a quote on a comment board I thought was funny, so I posted it to share it. No motive or agenda. Didn't feel the need to google it.
Just wanted to share it. And wow. You are both very sad, very sour people.
Happy New Year.
Posted - 1/3/2014 1:05:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
We're "sad and sour" for wanting to know who said it?
And you think that by asking that question, we inferred that you had some sort of motive in posting it.
Holy smoke. You really do think the world is out to get you.
Posted - 1/3/2014 1:18:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
beenthere.. if you;'re going to have a breakdown..
any and every time someone asks a simple question, perhaps you'd be better off posting somewhere else..
you see, media professionals have this tendency to ask questions..
you seem very uncomfortable with that fact..
Posted - 1/3/2014 7:57:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well, no GD and Orth. I posted a quote I thought was funny. Does it matter who said it? You REALLY think it needed context?
As far as asking questions I find both your posts hilarious as well as hypocritical. Any time I ask a question, you both have a very loud and wordy attack against it that usually supports the position that I have no right to ask any questions!
In fact, GD's absolute lack of intellectual curiosity regarding, well, just about anything, has convinced me she is pretending to be a journalist. As an editor, I would never hire her. ever. She uses snopes, wikepedia and FAQs as sources.
Posted - 1/3/2014 8:52:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
Chill lady. Seriously.
We were just asking...I even said thanks for posting it. I was just curious who (in 2014) was paraphrasing Mark Twain. And Lord knows there's nothing wrong with that.
Honestly...if you were just slightly less paranoid and slightly less conspiracy minded, that post showed you'd be great to converse/debate with.
Ok. I was being nice. You remind me of the great Woody Allen line; "there is nothing wrong with her that "a little Prozac and a polo mallet wouldn't cure".
Posted - 1/4/2014 3:11:24 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is Obama's Fault
Posted - 1/4/2014 12:03:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** In fact, GD's absolute lack of intellectual curiosity regarding, well, just about anything, has convinced me she is pretending to be a journalist. As an editor, I would never hire her. ever. ***
Gosh, you skipped over all the other posters to home in on ME? I am honored, truly honored, that a conspiracy theorist like you would give your full attention to ME.
It's a shame you're NOT an editor, because if you were, it would be my pleasure not to be hired by you. There is, however, a flaw in your logic: Aren't you in Chicago? And aren't I in California? Then what would be the logic of giving up a wonderful career in the land of sunshine and avocados as big as bowling balls in order to take a job in the land of snowballs with a very -- VERY -- large employer for whom Obama personally chose a crappy group health insurance plan?
This is the truth, beenthere: I don't work for an insecure bullies who are so buzzed-out on conspiracy theories, they post before checking out information at the simplest-to-use of websites to which they're directed. You shouldn't, either. They're a bad influence.
If you need to keep singling out me for insults, be my guest. I'll consider being your punching bag to be an act of kindness providing therapy for you. Enjoy! ;o)
Posted - 1/4/2014 12:23:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
P.S. If you DO want to keep using me as a therapeutic punching bag, please make it as often as possible. One of my New Year's resolutions to perform at least one act of kindness every day in 2014. On some days, it's hard to do anything but report/write/edit, and you would be helping me very much to fulfill the resolution.
Posted - 1/4/2014 1:57:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
"We're "sad and sour" for wanting to know who said it?"
The unenviable record of you left wingers on here is of a sad and sour group seeking to diminish and/or denigrate any message you don't like by asking for sources, which you then attempt to demonize. Classic "shoot the messenger."
Sad but true.
Posted - 1/4/2014 2:59:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
OK. Now we've heard that asking for the source of a quotation (1) implies a search for a motive or an agenda. We've also heard that (2) it's politically left-wing to ask for the source of a quotation.
Can nine play this goofy little game? Of course, they can! We all know there are at least nine ways to build mountains out of molehills, right?
I'll pile on: Asking for the source of a quotation is Missourian. You know, Missouri -- the Show Me State. Asking for the source of any information is, therefore, indubitably a Missouri activity and those who engage in it are fringe Missourians.
Posted - 1/5/2014 12:10:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
And so here we have it, folks
People question from whom the quote comes.
A couple of the posters are outraged and offended that the question even be asked.
Jesus Christ on the cross folks, this is a board for TV people, most of whom are journalists. That one would be asked from where a quote comes should not
1. be a surprise
2. be something about which you should take issue
3. be something about which you should question the motive
This place continues to amaze me. Use your noggin, folks. Use your common sense. Hell, one of the subsequent posters even quoted St. Mark of Twain, essentially validating the quote. I mean, what jaundiced, liberal journalist thinks anything but the world of Samuel Clemens?
Cool your jets. Engage your minds. Stop being so paranoid. We're not asking for your debit card's pin number.
And by the way, get the fuck used to it. This is a board where a lot of TV journalists gather. If you can't take the heat, go cook in a kitchen where your thoughts will never be challenged, your sources never be asked. This ain't that place.
Posted - 1/5/2014 12:47:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
Y'know cowboy, you might have something
if you and your left wing brethren didn't always attempt to use our responses as political weapons. Being outnumbered here about five to one, does it honestly surprise you that we're circumspect? If it does you're not very bright.
Posted - 1/5/2014 12:58:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
You're right cruiser
At least when you said "you might have something."
Posted - 1/5/2014 2:28:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
I heard that Mark Twain
was nothing more than another liberal tool for the Center for American Progress. Took his orders from that infamous 8:30am phone call.
And he was Kenyan donchaknow.
Posted - 1/5/2014 7:52:12 AM | show profile | flag this post
Well, mp, he let it be remembered that Clemens (Twain) was a print reporter before he was a novelist and essayist.
(VTex, Media Bistro is not just for TV people, and neither is this forum. You can see the site's media areas under the header on this page.)
Posted - 1/5/2014 9:01:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
P.S. to VTexan:
MB created the Current Events forum about 10 years ago specifically to shunt off the nut cases who were junking up the Media Issues and Beginners Issues forums. Those forums were where we could talk about changes in the industry, where to find equipment, contract questions, and anything else about what we do for a living. At that time, MB had a different owner (famous for setting up meet-and-greet cocktail parties for media people in big cities) and a different motto, not "the pulse of the media" but something more like the place where media professionals meet.
It worked well. The kooks, with their disrespect and obliviousness to the purpose of the site, madly dashed to Current Events, and we could discuss topics about the profession in those other forums. Then, as now, Current Events wasn't about current events, it was a collection of threads filled with name-calling, fake-outs, media-bashing and political argument-baiting. All of that got worse when the TV people's site, owned by the same company, was shut down and they were sent over here as an alternative. In a snap, it intensified to the point that the old users quit coming to any of the forums here; and finally, in a redesign, the click off the home page was removed, making the BBS nearly invisible. When you think about it, sending the TV site's users to this forum on the BBS spoke volumes about the company's opinion of them.
So as far as garbage goes, the Current Events forum was set up as a dump to keep it out of the other forums that, unfortunately, died because there became too much of it. It's why there's literally no participation here anymore and why old-timers remember the BBS with deep disappointment that the fun was sucked out of it, if they admit to having been here at all.
Posted - 1/5/2014 11:17:08 AM | show profile | flag this post
for the background :)
Posted - 1/5/2014 1:52:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
Thanks for taking it as presented, mp. I don't know the name of the TV people's site or who is here now from there, because I had never heard of that site until the week we got invaded, so to speak, and there was no reason to remember it because it was dead. That week was like: What the hell bus pulled into our town and dropped off these animals? Horrible bullying, pushy, argumentive, just plain nasty folks who told us to get lost and then made sure we did.
Posted - 1/5/2014 3:20:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
i think it was tvspy's water cooler, wasn't it?
that's what I remember..
Posted - 1/5/2014 4:33:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
I don't know, orth. I just searched on "TV Spy" and it came up with this as one of the choices under the heading: http://www.mediabistro.com/TVSpy-Watercooler-f162-forum.html
Is that weird or what? It can be found by clicking on the "TV & Video" button at the top of this page, then on "TVSpy" and "Watercooler."
I wonder whether all the nastiness never had to happen -- whether some of the TV-site folks got lost when they were sent to Media Bistro. It was completely strange that they commandeered "Current Events."
Posted - 1/6/2014 12:13:42 AM | show profile | flag this post
...it was TVSpy/Watercooler. Its administrator created something called the Sandbox (now, how's that for a metaphorical slap in the face? "You children go play in the sandbox."). Eventually TVSpy went away and this came in its place.
I've been here more or less for the aforementioned decade, always under the name VTexan.
Of course, it's not "just" for TV professionals and/or journalists. But back when this was started, that was all who came here. That was back when blogging was just getting started and Twitter was the sound a bird might make.
Posted - 1/6/2014 3:30:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
No. The "Current Events" forum definitely was not created to replace that site's "watercooler." "Current Events" existed for years before the posters from that site showed up here.
I don't remember you at all from 10 years ago on Media Bistro. I've been here since the late '90s. Until the BBS died, I posted mostly in "Media Issues."