Welcome to USA Patriot Freedom Liberty High School!

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-11-06 09:12pm

O'Reilly had previously praised Letterman as "a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy" and as having "the toughest interview show on television."

When asked by O'Reilly to give examples, Letterman stated that he never watched his show. The next day on his television program, O'Reilly criticized Letterman and called him "a card-carrying member of the secular progressive movement."

Quite the turn around after a single interview with Letterman.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-11-06 09:16pm

Alyeska wrote:
O'Reilly had previously praised Letterman as "a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy" and as having "the toughest interview show on television."

When asked by O'Reilly to give examples, Letterman stated that he never watched his show. The next day on his television program, O'Reilly criticized Letterman and called him "a card-carrying member of the secular progressive movement."
Quite the turn around after a single interview with Letterman.

In O'Reilly's world, intelligence is measured not by abilities, but by whether you support Bill O'Reilly.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-11-06 10:29pm

Errmm...actually, this whole shebang actually sounds like a pretty good idea. Get all the scum of the earth together in one spot...

...and use your imagination.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2006-11-07 02:45pm

Darth Wong wrote: Not necessarily; the English language tends to have both strict and loose definitions of words. For example, the word "religion" normally refers to a belief system involving supernatural concepts. But the loose definition is anything you believe in strongly, so if you believe that Doritos are better than Pringles, that's a religion.
When people say that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact", they are using a strict definition of "fact". Using that same definition, Julius Caesar's existence is not a fact. If we say that a fact is just something that is based on evidence, then evolution is a fact too (please note that the phenomenon of evolution, as opposed to its mechanism, is actually a fact even by the strict definition, but that's another argument).

Adrian Laguna wrote: Well, it is not wrong if you take into account what a dictionary is meant to do, and what it isn't meant to do. You're citing the definition of fact as per common usage. Meanwhile, Darth Wong is using the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory". By necessity, scientific definitions are more exact. Because lack of precision introduces room for error, and science progresses better when there is no ambiguity to what someone is saying.

Thanks for explaining, that cleared up all my doubts.