Fuad admits Charlie was right about Fermi...

[ginfest]

yes, because nbc, abc, and cbs are so clearly unbiased in their reporting.



dude, are you stupid? keys and zap are both capable of banning you, and I will be amazed if you don't get at LEAST a week for your last 2 posts.

This guy was banned for life from B3D and if you read those forums, anti-NV rantings have been the norm for years.
Hopefully we won't have to put up with his insulting trash here for much longer.

 

[MrK6]

For some reason, people read these "news" sites and take it for Gospel, and then feel personally violated when what was stated isn't necessarily accurate/true or even comes into play. Grow the hell up. They're rumor sites that post rumors about computer hardware, Christ almighty.

Also, for all the shit people give Charlie for his heavily anti-NVIDIA writing, he's accurate many times with some good information. That still doesn't mean I scan the posts about his articles and say anything more than "interesting," but it's worth putting the information in the "possible outcomes" column. It's information people, no more, no less.

 

[Wreckage]

It's information people, no more, no less.

Unreliable, generally false and often misleading information.

I see plenty of information posted on the bathroom walls of the bars I go to. However, you don't see me calling 867-5309 to see if Jenny will give me a good time.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Unreliable, generally false and often misleading information.

I see plenty of information posted on the bathroom walls of the bars I go to. However, you don't see me calling 867-5309 to see if Jenny will give me a good time.

And sometimes accurate and make you laugh (well not for the readers that are in love with NVIDIA). On the other hand can't give u STD, stab you in the back or be a transsexual.

 

[T2k]

dude, are you stupid? keys and zap are both capable of banning you, and I will be amazed if you don't get at LEAST a week for your last 2 posts.

What for? Per my last conversation with Fern as long as I don't get into name calling or mod-callouts I'm fine. Calling him Focus Group Member is perfectly within rules - unless it counts as a curse word now 😀 it's a simple fact, according to him - and since he's not posting here as mod I'm allowed to question his motives.

 

[T2k]

This guy was banned for life from B3D

:hmm: Was I?

and if you read those forums, anti-NV rantings have been the norm for years.

Really? Then how come I was banned "for life" (sic! 😀)...?

Hopefully we won't have to put up with his insulting trash here for much longer.

Well, as far as I can tell so far it's only you who's posting his ignorant adhom venom with some misinformed trash here about me.... let me just report it... :twisted:

 

[Arkaign]

yes, because nbc, abc, and cbs are so clearly unbiased in their reporting.

Network news in general is horribly produced, you can throw CNN and MSNBC into the pile as well. The difference with Fox "news" is that the production of the product (news and infotainment) is purely and unabashedly political. The executives and decision makers of Fox read like what they are : fully Republican. In essence, they're honest about what they do, which is feed a particular view to people who want that view. The truly tragic thing is that are some people out there that think that they really *are* fair and balanced, just as watching purely CNN for a 'balanced' opinion would be idiotic.

It's all kind of static noise, but I think it's bad and illogical to go out with a singular mission in mind. That kind of ethic produces generally unworthwhile results. In the case of Fox : make Republicans look good, make Democrats look bad, or hype up the latest celebrity news nonsense, and in the case of Charlie : rant about Nvidia, make them look bad however possible, either with pure speculation or a grain of truth now and then.

All an intelligent person can do is try to tune out the more flagrantly insane sources for information, and filter it through multiple sources and a good dose of common sense.

 

[Keysplayr]

:hmm: Was I?



Really? Then how come I was banned "for life" (sic! 😀)...?



Well, as far as I can tell so far it's only you who's posting his ignorant adhom venom with some misinformed trash here about me.... let me just report it... :twisted:

Anything to attract more attention to yourself is good. Have at it.

 

[T2k]

Anything to attract more attention to yourself is good. Have at it.

I'm a bit perplexed now... care to elaborate?

 

[T2k]

network news in general is horribly produced, you can throw cnn and msnbc into the pile as well. The difference with fox "news" is that the production of the product (news and infotainment) is purely and unabashedly political. The executives and decision makers of fox read like what they are : Fully republican. In essence, they're honest about what they do, which is feed a particular view to people who want that view. The truly tragic thing is that are some people out there that think that they really *are* fair and balanced, just as watching purely cnn for a 'balanced' opinion would be idiotic.

It's all kind of static noise, but i think it's bad and illogical to go out with a singular mission in mind. That kind of ethic produces generally unworthwhile results. In the case of fox : Make republicans look good, make democrats look bad, or hype up the latest celebrity news nonsense, and in the case of charlie : Rant about nvidia, make them look bad however possible, either with pure speculation or a grain of truth now and then.

All an intelligent person can do is try to tune out the more flagrantly insane sources for information, and filter it through multiple sources and a good dose of common sense.

qft

 

[Schmide]

Network news in general is horribly produced, you can throw CNN and MSNBC into the pile as well. The difference with Fox "news" is that the production of the product (news and infotainment) is purely and unabashedly political. The executives and decision makers of Fox read like what they are : fully Republican. In essence, they're honest about what they do, which is feed a particular view to people who want that view. The truly tragic thing is that are some people out there that think that they really *are* fair and balanced, just as watching purely CNN for a 'balanced' opinion would be idiotic.

Are you trying to be deadpan? Making a point with Fox News as your ideal, seems rather futile.

Edit: Unless you studied at The UR (The University of I don't Remember)

 

[MrK6]

Unreliable, generally false and often misleading information.

That's not what his record is.

I see plenty of information posted on the bathroom walls of the bars I go to. However, you don't see me calling 867-5309 to see if Jenny will give me a good time.

If Jenny worked for NVIDIA, you would.

 

[waffleironhead]

dude, are you stupid? keys and zap are both capable of banning you, and I will be amazed if you don't get at LEAST a week for your last 2 posts.

Maybe i'm dense, but I dont see the problem with his posts. Are people not allowed to disagree around here anymore, or question the messenger's bias for that matter?

 

[Wreckage]

That's not what his record is.

It's much worse, I was just being polite.

 

[AdamK47]

I can wait. Went with two 2GB GTX285s in SLI and it plays everything at 60 FPS (vsync) without going any lower for the settings I play at.

 

[Arkaign]

Are you trying to be deadpan? Making a point with Fox News as your ideal, seems rather futile.

Edit: Unless you studied at The UR (The University of I don't Remember)

I think you need to re-read my post, Fox news is about as far from my ideal as it could possibly be, as is just about any single 'news' source.

 

[Schmide]

I think you need to re-read my post, Fox news is about as far from my ideal as it could possibly be, as is just about any single 'news' source.

The fact that you're even lumping Faux News in the bunch affirms my point. Then again, I may be a little bias against them, I get my news from PBS and the Washington Post.

Your analogy that because they're straight forward with their stance, in no way justifies it.

 

[MrK6]

It's much worse, I was just being polite.

Then prove it. Better yet, show any public information source that has had better information sooner.

 

[lopri]

Edit: Unless you studied at The UR (The University of I don't Remember)

Regent University

 

[Arkaign]

The fact that you're even lumping Faux News in the bunch affirms my point. Then again, I may be a little bias against them, I get my news from PBS and the Washington Post.

Your analogy that because they're straight forward with their stance, in no way justifies it.

Huh? I don't get your point at all, what point is that? I also listen to PBS radio quite often, which although anything can be a bit skewed from time to time, is much much much less skewed than FNC. FNC is out to make money though, along with pulling the party line, and they're pretty honest about what they do. That doesn't make it right, but plenty of people line up to get spoon-fed exactly what they want to hear, even if a lot of it is patently insane.

My point was that when a news source goes out to deliberately gather and report 'news' that serves their predisposed agenda, it does a disservice to any logical independent rational thinker. Luckily, most intelligent people don't depend on a source such as FNC, MSNBC, etc to form their own opinions and questions about what's going on.

At the risk of polluting this section with P&N rambling, the original equivalency that I drew between FNC and Charlie is that both have an insatiable agenda to push, and instead of gathering all the relevant news from a fair angle, they gather exactly what supports that agenda, and ignore anything else as much as possible.

 

[Schmide]

Regent University

mediamatters src

 

[Schmide]

My point was that when a news source goes out to deliberately gather and report 'news' that serves their predisposed agenda,

At the risk of polluting this section with P&N rambling, the original equivalency that I drew between FNC and Charlie is that both have an insatiable agenda to push, and instead of gathering all the relevant news from a fair angle, they gather exactly what supports that agenda, and ignore anything else as much as possible.

A big difference between FNC and Charlie you may want to think about. Charlie doesn't attempt to create news, only interpret it. He may get it wrong, but none of the stories are sourced in house. Faux News on the other hand has been caught creating news, (i.e. The 9/12 Tea Party protests) for the sole purpose to fulfill their own agenda. Something unique only to Fox.

The day I saw Nazi footage for the sole purpose of creating hype and FUD, they ceased to be a news organization.

You're right we are bringing P&N into this arena, but once the comparison has been made it's fair game. If you continue to stand by your comparison, I will continue to poke holes in it.

Your appeal to commonality is unjustified and lame.

 

[Arkaign]

Well we will have to agree to disagree then. Of course FNC is going to be a lot more divisive than Charlie, but going out to deliberately gather one-sided stories is a waste either way. If Charlie had more resources, he would probably try to create news. He guesses and rumor-mongers enough that it's functionally equivalent to 'creating' news, given that he almost invariably uses 'anonymous' sources. Think of Charlie as a very tiny independent Fox news, it's not like Charlie has some cretin like Murdoch backing him and a massive war chest to work with, along with a bunch of corrupt lackeys to do his bidding.

I can't really understand what you are going on about, particularly the last sentence. 'Appeal to commonality is unjustified and lame'? Do you mean it's unjustified to compare disreputable sources for news, ones that go out to gather only a particular side? Because that's pretty much ironclad for both of these pathetic sources of information.

 

[T2k]

A big difference between FNC and Charlie you may want to think about. Charlie doesn't attempt to create news, only interpret it. He may get it wrong, but none of the stories are sourced in house. Faux News on the other hand has been caught creating news, (i.e. The 9/12 Tea Party protests) for the sole purpose to fulfill their own agenda. Something unique only to Fox.

The day I saw Nazi footage for the sole purpose of creating hype and FUD, they ceased to be a news organization.

You're right we are bringing P&N into this arena, but once the comparison has been made it's fair game. If you continue to stand by your comparison, I will continue to poke holes in it.

Your appeal to commonality is unjustified and lame.

While I do think FakeNews is fundamentally different from the rest I also think his principal point was that anyone with just average intellect can filter it and also that presumably will never try to form his opinion from a single source, be it FakeNews or PBS or MSNBC.

 

[T2k]

If Charlie had more resources, he would probably try to create news. He guesses and rumor-mongers enough that it's functionally equivalent to 'creating' news, given that he almost invariably uses 'anonymous' sources. Think of Charlie as a very tiny independent Fox news, it's not like Charlie has some cretin like Murdoch backing him and a massive war chest to work with, along with a bunch of corrupt lackeys to do his bidding.

There you go, you just left the field of sane arguments - this is pure speculation, pulled out of your bottom part about Charlie... 😛 and it's not even logical: why would he do that? Makes no sense, it's not 60+ years old couch-potato FakeNews viewers but fairly well-informed, knowledgeable audience who can catch him faster than he would edit the page later...