Congress Hammers FCC

[JoshTheRadioDude]

When confronted with facts you act like a child. Do you have any factual evidence for the ridiculous claims you're making, or are you just going to post another article that proves you wrong?

I'm the one acting like a child? I presented facts, you rejected them out of hand. You want to try that accusation again, kiddo?

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

The opinions come from people who have more experience in this kind of thing than you. You can agree with them or not, but that doesn't put your opinion on the same level.

You don't know what kind of experience I have, so you can't make that judgement.

 

[TheBigA]

You don't know what kind of experience I have, so you can't make that judgement.

If you'd like to post your resume, as those in that article did, we'd love to see it. Otherwise you're just another anonymous poster with no cred.

I choose to believe people who are willing to attach some credentials to their opinions.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

I've already explained that I've been involved in such things at various levels. I'm not going to get into a phallus measuring contest with you just because you can't bring yourself to admit that you might be wrong. You choose to believe who you want to believe. I choose to believe reality.

 

[TheBigA]

You choose to believe who you want to believe. I choose to believe reality.

Once again, we're talking about an article YOU posted. Then when confronted with facts in YOUR article, you pull back from it and attack it. If you didn't agree with the article, you shouldn't have posted it.

These are documented facts given by credible people. You're an anonymous poster who calls himself a "radio dude." I choose to believe credible people.

This isn't about me being wrong. This is about you refusing to accept facts in an article you posted. Very different situation. Man up.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

I didn't "pull back" from or "attack" anything, I pointed out a fact cited in the article and disagreed with the OPINION given in it as analysis. There's nothing to "man up" over, son, and if you want to accuse me of hiding behind anonymous names, TheBigA, you've got no room to talk.

 

[TheBigA]

There's nothing to "man up" over, son, and if you want to accuse me of hiding behind anonymous names, TheBigA, you've got no room to talk.

I'm not asking you to believe anything. You wanted me to believe something, and you gave me an article to substantiate it, and then you disagree with the main thrust of that article, which is that a million people made comments about Net Neutrality, but they were basically repeats of one comment duplicated multiple times. That isn't an opinion. That isn't analysis. That's a reported fact, given by impartial educators who don't have a dog in the fight. So either you agree with that article, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

If, when reading that article, you can't separate the facts that I was referring to from the opinion that I pointed out that I disagreed with, then there's no hope for you. I stated the fact that over a million people submitted comments to the FCC on net neutrality. I provided an article to back that up. And if you think that anyone is impartial on this topic, you're a bigger fool than I thought. Nobody is trying to have it both ways, you simply can't allow yourself to be wrong, and once again (as it has in the past), your foolish insistence on being right is crashing down on you.

 

[TheBigA]

If, when reading that article, you can't separate the facts that I was referring to from the opinion that I pointed out that I disagreed with, then there's no hope for you.

Not true. There's lots of hope for me. There's no hope for someone who posts an article to justify his opinion, and then chooses to dispute the entire thrust of that article.

Otherwise, why do you believe one part of it, ie, the number of comments, and not the content of those comments? What you're saying would call into question the credibility of the entire article.

I have no dog in this fight either. I really don't care. I just called you on something, and you're unhappy about that. So it's not about ME being wrong or right. I'm not involved in this issue one way or the other. It's about you posting an article that you now claim is opinion. You should simply retract that article, and find one that you agree with. I'm sure you can find one somewhere.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

Are you really that dense? You cannot grasp the simple concept that just because the majority were form letters, that doesn't mean they don't count? In that case, let's scratch the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, too. They were just a couple of pre-written documents that a bunch of people signed on to; they don't really mean anything.

You didn't call me on jack squat, son, and the next time you presume that you did, take a step back and think "am I the one being an idiot here?" Because if your interactions with me on this site are any indication (and they are), 99 times out of 100, the answer is yes.

 

[TheBigA]

Are you really that dense? You cannot grasp the simple concept that just because the majority were form letters, that doesn't mean they don't count? In that case, let's scratch the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, too. They were just a couple of pre-written documents that a bunch of people signed on to; they don't really mean anything.

Huh? What are you talking about? Did you actually read that article? It sounds like you didn't. Or maybe you only read the parts you agree with.

The article clearly and factually explains why the FCC ignored the majority of the comments. And there's no question they ignored a majority of the comments, right? The majority doesn't count because the FCC didn't count them. If you have an argument with someone, it's not with me, or the author of the article, but with the FCC. But even if they read and counted ALL of the comments, the number has nothing to do with the actions they take. They don't base their actions on the number of comments.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

I read the article, son, and I've already pointed out where I agree and disagree with its assessment. And at no point did I say that the FCC's decision was based solely on public comments. That's never been how they operate, and it never will be. But I gather that you already understood that I knew that, you just don't like the fact that someone has come along and pointed things out that run contrary to your established point of view. Which is a shame, because there are times at which we've agreed on things, but you seem to have this dire need to prove me wrong at every turn, and frankly, the act is beyond old and tired. When you can grow up and deal with reality, then come talk to me. Until then, sit out and let the adults converse.

 

[TheBigA]

I gather that you already understood that I knew that, you just don't like the fact that someone has come along and pointed things out that run contrary to your established point of view.

As I said, I don't have a point of view here. It really doesn't matter. The FCC will do what it wants. If it ignores a majority of the comments, then that's what it ill do. As I said, your argument is with them, not me. And I'm not proving you wrong. I'm simply restating the facts from an article you posted.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

And I've differentiated several times now between the facts and the opinion given as analysis in that article. You choose to ignore that difference. Good for you. It's time for you to move on.

 

[TheBigA]

And I've differentiated several times now between the facts and the opinion given as analysis in that article. You choose to ignore that difference. Good for you. It's time for you to move on.

You haven't differentiated anything. The fact is that the FCC ignored a majority of the comments. You accept that. But even if they read every one, it wouldn't make any difference. And you admit that. So what's your point?

 

[frankberry]

Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No.

I am closing this thread.
There is nothing to be gained by repeating the same things over and over.