Hard to say
Well, let me ask it in more simple terms, then:
Do you believe that $$$ had any bearing on Murdoch's comments?
Recall that he is the major shareholder of News Corp.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Hard to say
Well, let me ask it in more simple terms, then:
Do you believe that $$$ had any bearing on Murdoch's comments?
Recall that he is the major shareholder of News Corp.
I haven't seen you offer an opinion yet, fd.
What do you think?
This thread has seen a lot of debate about whether or not the cartoon was 'racist', or should be seen as 'insensitive' or some such.
And you mentioned that Murdoch had apologised -- the implication being that if the chairman of the news conglomerate which ran the cartoon apologised for it, then it must have been 'racist' and/or insensitive.
I am pointing out that Murdoch had a vested financial interest in 'apologising' for it, whether or not he actually thought that there was anything wrong with the cartoon.
Hence, his 'apology' does not add any weight to your argument whatsoever.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
This is the first time I've seen you actually explain your opinion, when you were asking questions before I wasn't sure what you were trying to say because you explained it so poorly.
I disagree with your opinion. I think its obvious that it was insensitive and foolhardy to run the cartoon, if not blatantly racist, and that Murdoch has acknowledged this.
I have previously told you just how amazing your self-contradictions can be and, in your typical rush to criticise and insult, you have just produced another perfect example.
If I did not explain myself, how could I have done so 'poorly'?
Anybody with any sense could surely have seen where my earlier questions were leading, and I imagine that this includes you.
This does not rebut my point that Murdoch's 'acknowledgment' adds nothing to the weight of your overall argument.
Your opinion was not a 'point' that I even think exists, why would I rebut it?
I have laid out my argument in almost standard form. It could not be clearer. If you do not understand the argument that I have put forward, there is little hope for you. However, I don't believe this is the case -- I think you can see my argument and simply do not have a way of overcoming it. Hence, you pretend the argument does not exist.
A change of tack for you, after your previous efforts along the lines of 'I know you are wrong, I just can't figure out how, yet'.
Or perhaps he has acknowledged your stance as the only one that will stop people hassling him over this non-issue.Murdoch has acknowledged my stance as the correct one and apologised.
Or perhaps he has acknowledged your stance as the only one that will stop people hassling him over this non-issue.
Has KP ever been involved in a conversation in which he hasn't had a pathological determination to have the final word?
Oh well, that settles it then. Obviously Rupert Murdoch would never lie.That isn't what he said though. He said my stance was correct.
no... Or is it yes?
Or do i just like rubbing racists noses in the fact they're wrong all the time?
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.