Here we go:
Foxfyre wrote:I probably at some point did say George Soros funded Media Matters without qualification based on incorrect information I received.
Yep. Not "probably" - you did. I just quoted you doing so.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know how far back you had to go to find those quotes
A month. I may be getting older but my memory can still deal with a month.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know how far back you had to go to find those quotes to take out of context
What do you mean with "out of context"? Responding to a Media Matters item that had nothing to do whatsoever with Soros, you went out of your way to add "Soros-funded" as qualifier to describe them three times in a row. No idea what that was supposed to achieve, I assume it counts as an insult in your eyes. My point here was simple: you repeatedly asserted that MM was Soros-funded; it wasnt. End. What context would you like to have introduced here on that count?
Foxfyre wrote:You really are obsessed aren't you.
Huh? I happened to come upon the Politico correction today, and remembered that you had made the exact same allegation that the Politico had to retract just a month ago. So I typed "Media Matters Soros" in the A2K search box, found your post in question, and responded to it. Took me five minutes.
Foxfyre wrote:Foxfyre provided her sources
When you posted here that George Soros funded Media Matters, and called Media Matters the Soros-funded people? No, you didn't.
When you later reworded the claim more ambiguously
in another thread, you did give a source - CNSNews (founded as "Conservative News Service"). When that was received sceptically, you did (not for the first time) what appears to be a Google word search linkdump - a bunch of links that must all have had the words "Soros" and "Media Matters" in it, but that you hadnt apparently actually read, since some never even
mentioned any link between the two.
For example, your links had an Eric Alterman column among them, from the Nation. One problem: it didnt actually mention Media Matters anywhere - let alone it being Soros-funded. Why was it in your list of links then? I think I know - the little "about Eric Alterman" frame next to the article mentioned that he's a weblogger for Media Matters. So thats how it must have come up in your Google search.
Same with the WaPo story you included in the list. Does it mention anything about Soros funding Media Matters, directly or indirectly? Nope. Nothing. Article happens to mention both Soros and Media Matters, which is how it must have showed up in the Google search results, but it never made any connection between them, not about funding or anyhow else.
So what was that all about? I mean, come
on - what do you take us for? Is your gambit to assume that we wont actually click your links anyway, so you can claim to have "listed your sources" even though some of those links never even
mentioned the thing you were talking about?
Foxfyre wrote:Foxfyre provided her sources, none of which are those you are attributing to me now without sourcing your own opinions.
Uhm, I
did actually link in the sources for what I posted here. You have to click the blue words - those are links.
Foxfyre wrote:I maintain that there is ample evidence out there--some I've posted and numerous other sources all of which you would likely reject--outlining and specifyin ghow he does fund David Brock and Media Matters through the various leftwing organization that directly fund Media Matters. You are welcome to believe what you wish about the connections.
"Connections".. Look, didnt you do something in the field of fundraising yourself, once, or do I misremember? If you did, then you will know that most funding is earmarked for specific activities. That is certainly true for most all funding given by Soros's Open Society Institute, for one. You dont, usually, get funding to spend, or in your turn give away again, as you see fit. So funding that Soros gave to "various leftwing organisations" will tend to have been tied to specific projects, activities, etc. And as Media Matters has stated, it has not received funding "indirectly" from Soros this way either.
Foxfyre wrote:In my opinion Media Matters is about the most reprehensible and irresponsible media source out there.
Really?
Foxfyre wrote:The honest among us won't try to deny there is no connection at all, however, or that Media Matters is not benefitting on purpose from Soros funding, and if anybody wants to believe Soros doesn't know what the organizations he funds are doing with his money, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
See above. Grants and funding are rarely just given away for the grantee to spend on whatever it sees fit. So if Soros works the same way in America as he does here, the money he gave to other organisations would have been spent on earmarked activities, and could therefore not have been in turn channeled on to Media Matters.
Not that I would
mind if Soros funded Media Matters, just to make that clear - I think they're doing an admirable job of dispassionately fact-checking media stories. They're partisan, for sure - they mostly only fact-check stories that put liberal groups or issues in a bad light. But they are nerdily precise in what they do; simple fact-checking.
So I wouldnt
mind - but fact is, he doesnt - and your reasoning that somehow indirectly he is responsible after all is naive at best, and a lie at worst.
Look, lets look at the reasoning here. Your CNS news story says, "Clearly [Media Matters] worked very closely with Soros-funded groups", with which it meant MoveOn.org: ergo, "there is definitely a Soros connection there."
According to the same logic, the US Republican Party funded the Ukrainian Orange revolution. After all, the International Republican Institute has supported organisations, which in turn were active in the revolution.
Simple, uh? Except it's nonsense.
Foxfyre wrote:Would it be helpful if you supplied me with a list of topics, phrases, words, or expressions that are acceptable to you? At least that would help me know when another one of these things is coming.
What Kicky said. If you repeat claims that are plain false, then you will be pointed out that they are plain false. If you dont want the bother of being fact-checked, then simply make sure not to post, or parrot, falsehoods.
I couldn't agree more, silly. I've just never needed a cam to look at pics before. But, I'm always in need of dazzlement. :wink:
