User talk:Baseball Bugs/Snapshot100130

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = => CAUTION: This page may contain SATIRE posing as data. <= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it I'm against it! --Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers

Ark-Hives
User talk:Wahkeenah User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive001 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive002 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive003 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive004 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive005 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive006 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive007

Letters from fans

Ah, my public. How they love me.

• BASEBALLS BUGS IS AN UGLY IGNORANT FOOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.166.166 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're stupid. Mayallld (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about that obviously immature Basebuggs? Tanninglamp 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe! ROFLMFAO! @ Baseball Bugs. That guy makes the dumbest jokes. You gotta love him for trying though. LMFAO! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! =D Cheers! Cheers dude 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hehehehehehehe! Baseball Bugs is a cutie. 65.31.103.28 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is your problem? Why are you being a jerk? 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• You sir are an imbecile and a pervert. User:Jimihh aka User:Jimihendd 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is Ron liebman. Even though I've been banned since 2007, due to being too trivial for words, I still come by on a regular basis and hang a few more socks from my perpetually unwashed laundry. I was beside myself when Buggs announced his retirement, and that was rough because one of me was already too many. Without Bugges to hassle, life was almost not worth living. I talked to my priest, and he advised me to take it easy on my constitution, and make amendments with Buggges and promise to never sock again. And if I should ever break that promise, may an earthquake swallow the NY Public Library during working hours. Go Cubs! -- Ron liebman (talk) 23:99, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Always having to have the last word is a good indication of just how deep your narcissism and insecurity runs. I am sure that you got teased and picked on a lot when you were younger and this is what - some kind of do over for high school? Pretty sad little man, pretty sad... I am just quaking... ROTFLOLMFAOOMT!!! Whatever fantasy you dream up for your online persona is just fine by me, but dont seriosuly think that you can pass off some kind of tough guy web warrior bravado. I just aint buying it and it makes you look pretty silly... thanks for the sarcasm laden nock at the USN, much appreciated, you are a class act all the way. Here's a tip: man up or shut up. Its easy to sound hard from your parents basement... Yeahhh... right... sincerity... thats what yuo were going for... your recent thrashing at that RfAdminship shows you know how things work around here real good... all I am doing with Bugs is setting the drag to zero so he can take as much rope as he can tear out of the reel to hang himslef. Seems to be working. CENSEI (talk) 02:07->19:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Have you ever thought of going to a psychiatrist to help cure your paranoias. The last thing you should be thinking of is becoming an Admisitrator! Holy smoke!! Signbottom (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsection for actual fans...

...who, unlike those in the above section, have not been indefinitely blocked. :)

• ¡¡ Béisbol Bugs Been Berry Berry Good 2 me !! ¹

¹(but Baseball Bugs...) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• To my favourite 'Distinct Personality'. May all your carrots be monsters, and all your hunters be Fudds. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now then, mind you, if you do have a great notion to take the fast track to an indef, here's an example of how to do that: [1] And if you take that path, be sure not to say it to a mere mortal; place it on an admin's talk page, where it will get a "quick" response.

Admisitrator?

For those who may be under the false impression that I'm an admin, I invite you to visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs and witness the carnage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kinship

Hey Bugs. As someone who recently went through a difficult RfA I thought for sure you'd want to wait until I've had a chance to answer the questions [2]? :) Well, you can always change your mind. I wanted to mention that I responded to your comment on my talk page with a couple questions in case you were interested in responding. Thanks. Take care. Feel free to remove this at your discretion. I will not take any offense, it's most certainly your talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was later advised that I was supposed to wait. I didn't know the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, CoM, what's a polite way of saying 'I'd rather staple my own face shut?' 03:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs)

I don't know the exact meaning of 'I'd rather staple my own face shut', but given this news, the sentence sounds very offensive.--Caspian blue 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound comfortable, in either case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Bugs, is something a controversy simply b/c it's one partisan attacking another? I just gutted the Bill O'Reily criticism page mainly b/c every single thing I took out was a 'controversy' started by A) Keith Olbermann B) Media Matters C) Al Franken D) Some other liberal partisan group or figure. I figured that since there was a distinct lack of non-partisan groups talking about these so called 'controversies' that they were WP:UNDUE and had no business being in the article. (If the only qualification for something to be a controversy is a partisan taking it up every single liberal article would be covered with Limbaugh, Hannity, and other conservatives IMO.) Soxwon (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All of those guys thrive on controversy, so adding or deleting sections from those articles kind of misses the point of what their shows are about. In regard to O'Reilly, always remember that he came from Inside Edition. I recall the storm of outrage over his suggestion that the Hornbeck kid was happy to be living in captivity. I thought it was one of the stupidest things he had ever said, and that's going some. I haven't seen the article for awhile. Does/did it have the time that O'Reilly went ballistic over an unofficial, off-site and segregated prom conducted by white kids at a Georgia high school? He had Neil Boortz on there talking about the story, and O'Reilly got blindsided when Boortz suggested that O'Reilly was overreacting because he had been criticized for under-reacting to another recent segregation case. O'Reilly looked at Boortz with fire in his eyes, and called him a "real son of a bitch". So much for O'Reilly's claim that he never name-calls. But that's also the risk he runs, bringing someone in who's as quick on his feet as O'Reilly is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but back to what I was saying, is it really a notable controversy if it's limited to that select group? There were no links to anything save those groups/individuals. Soxwon (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Name 3 of the controversies and I'll give you my opinion. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He mispoke about getting an award, he uncovered corrupt proceedings (though through a mistake, but still), and mispoke about Malmedy instead of Normandy. All mistakes yet suddenly elevated to "controversie" b/c of him getting lambasted by partisan commentators. Soxwon (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall watching the show where the award mistake was discussed. It wasn't O'Reilly's show; I think it was on C-SPAN, of all places. It was at a booksellers convention or something, and I think Pat Schroeder was the hostess, who found herself in the position of trying to be peacemaker. I thought Franken and O'Reilly were on the verge of a fistfight - very unseemly stuff, especially for the usually bland, low-key C-SPAN. I've never seen O'Reilly so steamed. He called Franken an "idiot" (there's that not-name-calling again) and Franken has been on his enemies list ever since (if he wasn't there already). It's a good thing they were on separate sides of the podium. Franken was factually correct on his points that (1) it was the wrong award; and (2) O'Reilly left the reader with the impression that he himself won the award, which was not the case. To give you my take on it, I thought Franken was unfair in that he beat the subject to death. By itself, it wasn't very important. But I think it would be worthwhile to keep it in, and maybe find some sources that come closer to what I'm saying about it, to put some perspective on it. The reason is not the error itself, but that it gives some background to his frequent badmouthing of Franken whenever the subject comes up. It's not just that Franken's a flaming liberal, it's that he "personally" attacked O'Reilly and wouldn't back off from it. I felt badly for O'Reilly that night, which is something I rarely say about that guy. The point being that there's a lot more to that controversy than just the award mistake itself. OK, that's one. I don't know the details of the other two. If he uncovered something corrupt, shouldn't that be a good thing, regardless of how he found it? And what's the context of the Normandy thing? Maybe you can tell I don't watch the show so much anymore. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The above also points out a pattern on the O'Reilly show - that he will focus on stuff people say about him, as he appears to take it very personally. Limbaugh does that too, but he uses it more as fodder for ridiculing the attacker as opposed to just complaining about the attacker, if you get the difference. I don't recall Hannity ever commenting on personal attacks - I think he stays above that sort of thing, but you might know differently, as I seldom watch that show anymore either. Regarding Olbermann on the other side, it's important to keep in mind where he came from too, namely ESPN. He conducts his show like it was a political version of SportsCenter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)\

But the point is, these are listed in a controversy page. If they were listed on his page fine, but it seems they are justifying this attack page with liberal partisans smearing him is what I'm saying. Soxwon (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You may not know that the article's content originally was in the main article. It was created as a spinoff because the main article's section was getting too large. One question is whether this is about "him" or about "his show"? Maybe that's the root problem with the article. O'Reilly is so visible that it's hard to distinguish "him" from "his show". I wouldn't say the same about Colbert, since he's essentially playing a character on his show. The real Colbert is more low-key and "normal". But whenever I've seen O'Reilly, he's always "on". Anyway, maybe the title is wrong - maybe it should be controversies about the show, rather than about O'Reilly himself. I don't know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It just seems like the whole thing became a dumping ground for every comment, incident, and attack leveled at O'Reily despite the fact that they all seem to come froma select group of sources and never made it into the mainstream media or achieved noteworthiness. Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, here is the material in question:

- After the September 11 terrorist attacks, O'Reilly devoted substantial time on his television show and wrote pieces accusing the United Way of America and American Red Cross of failing to deliver millions of dollars in donated money, raised by the organizations in the name of the disaster, to the families of those killed in the attacks. - O'Reilly claimed that the organizations misrepresented their intentions for the money being raised by not distributing all of the 9/11 relief fund to the victims. Actor George Clooney responded to O'Reilly's claims, accusing O'Reilly of misstating facts (including confusing the United Way with the Red Cross), sloppy reporting and harming the relief effort by inciting "panic" among potential donors. Congressional hearings were called on the matter and an investigation by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer took place. Bernadette Healey, the president of the Red Cross, resigned shortly thereafter. In a statement before the House Ways and Means Committee in November 2001, Congressman J.D. Hayworth asserted that media pressure, most notably from O'Reilly, helped cause the Red Cross to increase payments to affected people and helped cause other charities to participate in an oversight database established by Spitzer.

- On October 3, 2005, retired four-star general Wesley Clark was a guest on The O'Reilly Factor. A topic of debate on the program was a ruling regarding the potential release of more photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Clark defended the release of the additional Abu Ghraib photos saying the country needed to know what happened. While debating with Clark, O'Reilly incorrectly stated a historical fact of World War II when he said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne that did it." That massacre was the killing of 84 American soldiers by the Germans in the town of Malmedy, Belgium during World War II. - - The next day, on May 31, 2006, O'Reilly addressed a viewer email regarding the inaccuracy. As reported on The O'Reilly Factor, the email came from a Fort Worth Texas viewer named Donn Caldwell and stated: "Bill, you mentioned Malmedy as the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the SS shot down U.S. prisoners." O'Reilly responded to this by saying: "In the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough Mr. Caldwell. After Malmedy, some German captives were executed by American troops." - - According to Keith Olbermann and Media Matters, Fox News' website edited the transcript of O'Reilly's second interview with Clark, changing the line to, "In Normandy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces" when the video clearly shows that O'Reilly said "Malmedy" rather than "Normandy." - - This second instance of O'Reilly misstating the facts of the massacre, combined with his denial of doing so and the apparent cover up in the transcript by Fox News prompted a harsh response by Olbermann on the June 1, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Olbermann showed video clips of O'Reilly making these incorrect statements from the October 3 and May 30 editions of The O'Reilly Factor and showed the clip of O'Reilly addressing the viewer email the following day. - Olbermann lambasted O'Reilly, calling him a "false patriot who would rather be loud than right." He also compared the editing of the transcript to George Orwell's 1984. -

- After the airing, Fox News corrected the afore-mentioned transcript on June 2, which was noted in a follow up report on Countdown with Keith Olbermann the following Monday.

Again, neither received coverage outside MSNBC (Keith Olbermann), both are dubiously cited (Youtube, partisan sources), and don't seem really notable or to justify inclusion except to bloat a controversy page. Soxwon (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall the Red Cross discussion, and pressure from various folks including O'Reilly definitely caused trouble for the Red Cross. As I recall, they were taking some of the money that was supposed to be for 9/11 victims and using it to cover other funding. Maybe it could be worded in such a way that it points out that O'Reilly was essentially correct even if he got a few details wrong. About the Malmedy/Normandy thing, that's part of O'Reilly's pattern of having to kind of re-state things he has said before, to try to spin it (ironically); which is what happened in the Hornbeck case as well. He's an old-schooler who will never admit he's wrong, but will take some pains to try to re-explain it. That's an observable pattern, which is more important than maybe specific stories within that pattern. Good luck finding a neutral discussion of that, though. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cabeese!

Thank you for that, needed the laugh. Dureo (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)