Quite honestly, one thing that I have never comprehended about internet forums is why so many fall back upon the 'trolling' label whenever they don't like what's being said. As I understood the term, 'trolling' would be simply entering a thread for the sake of starting an argument (for the sake of being contrary without having any real beliefs on the subject) or entering a thread devoted to one thing and then injecting insults just to make people mad (say, an atheist entering a Bible discussion thread and mocking the other posters as being delusional idiots, etc.).

I've always found it amusing when, rather than debating a topic, a poster resorts to dismissing the poster as a "troll". Seems like a cowardly way of avoiding a debate (and I'm not calling out JTH, since he just said that my posts run the risks of appearing to be trolling). Just making an observation.

As I said in the previous post, I enjoy watching a spirited (and balanced) debate...and wish there was more of it available. I WANT to hear opposite viewpoints and reserve enough of an open mind to change my views if an intelligent argument is presented that challenge other notions. I would think that viewers of Maher's show (and other political shows) would be fans of spirited debate (and not just blind FANS who don't want to hear criticism of their favorites). That's why I 'waste precious time' watching and arguing...I enjoy the debate and welcome an informed rebuttal. Is that so hard to understand?

On the other hand, I guess it WOULD be simpler to just say, "Loved it" or "Hated it" about each show. Would save a lot of "precious time" and would certainly be more interesting to read than actually citing things that were said and then applauding or lambasting them.

I personally was mostly agreeing with Dolphinboy in that you consistently point out trivial things that no one really seems to care about aside from you such as crowd reactions or how many times per show Maher interrupts people. It gets old when you do the same thing week after week. Maher isn't the perfect host and I don't think anyone really said he was just that some of us find him better than the alternatives. If he's wrong about some things than obviously it's nice to get correct information and that's not a dumb reason to get upset about or present different information about.

I've been a Maher fan since the mid 90s. I've seen him perform standup live 5 times and own a couple of his books.

But his show doesn't do much for me anymore. He or his staff have facts wrong more than I'd like, and he can't stand when anyone either a)disagrees with him or b)calls him out on something. He likes to change the subject when that happens.

I'll still watch on DVR, but the only reason Real Time is still on the air is because it's on HBO and I guess they want to have this potential controversy/media hype when something happens.

Plus, I'm sure the show is dirt cheap to produce. I miss the old days of Politically Incorrect and the first few seasons of Real Time.

Hey, I completely understand your (and Dolphin & JTH) points. The only reason I gave all of the examples was because I had tuned in a few weeks back for the first time this season & got irritated at seeing the same old things & stated that. Then I got called out by a poster who is a fan of the show who said they'd been watching for many years and that those sort of things NEVER happened, asked for examples, and said he thought I had never seen the show. I agree that the point has been made (and he hasn't responded to the examples).

However, I do think it's worth pointing out incorrect "facts" from anyone on the show (host or guests), whether they be conservative or liberal. And both sides DO make mistakes, and both have their own "spin" on things.

I still think the audience should be jettisoned. I understand that the tickets are free, but that just indicates that very few conservatives are interested in attending (since a conservative almost NEVER gets any applause...unless he is stating a traditionally 'liberal' view...and liberals almost ALWAYS get cheers & applause for the most banal observation). To me, it's just distracting and makes the 'crowd reaction' seem rigged when it's so one-sided. I think the same about the 'conservative' shows (Huckabee, etc.) that have an audience that applauds those views. I'd just rather hear the guests talk/debate without the cheering section interrupting. It's like the DNC & RNC re-baked.

I miss Politically Incorrect, too. It seemed to have much more balance. And Maher can be funny.

I'd like to see Maher & Dennis Miller doing a stand-up liberal/conservative debate.

As to why Real Time is on HBO, I'm sure it's because the network takes a hard liberal tack to all of their programming. Take a look at the documentaries they produce (all supporting liberal viewpoints), the liberal views of their hosts (such as Real Sport's Bryant Gumbel inserting totally irrelevant conservative-bashing...as in the time during his sign-off piece when he mentioned a rare sports-related event happening "as often as Ann Coulter makes sense"), the tone of their original programming and movies (pro-uninhibited, explicit sexuality, pro-vulgar comedy, pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-conservative.). The liberal tone of their network (along with Showtime) reflects the studio heads & the Hollywood producers of the shows.

Please change this thread title to creekdipper's personal soapbox.

And why would he respond? He said it sounded like you never watched the show, not that you will never watch the show in the future. You citing these examples from shows that have aired since does nothing to disprove his original statement.

That would rock.

Liberal means tolerant, right? Or did I miss another newsletter?

As for creekdipper's participating in the thread, I'm somewhat at a loss. I struggle to "get" how he can be challenged because of a statement he made, to the point of being told to cite examples (who keeps a running log of what happens on the show?), then begins to cite examples as they occur going forward... but is told (effecdtively), "Nobody wants to hear all that."

So to summarize:

CD: This happens.
XX: No, it doesn't.
CD: No, really. It has.
XX: Prove it.
CD: Well, I can't completely prove it using past episodes, but I'll point it out as it happens.
(time passes)
CD: OK, it's happening. Here you go...
XX: Nobody wants to hear all that.

That doesn't quite seem fair to me.

As for the strke (and the accuracy of the show), all anyone has to do is go to the front page of the Chicago Sun-Times ( http://www.suntimes.com/ ) and you'll see the strike is still on. It seems perfectly reasonable (and in fact, valuable -- at least to me) to point out these types of errors. That isn't nitpicking. It's an issues show and it should present the facts surrounding the issues correctly.

Anyway, people feel how they feel. It's ultimately up to creekdipper if it's worth it to him to participate in the thread given the hostility shown, but in the face of many votes to the contrary, I'll go on record with my vote being that he stick around. My blood pressure may not always thank me, but that's ultimately my issue, not his.

I can see where you're coming from too. I agree that you shouldn't be shot down for pointing out incorrect facts and giving a different stance on issues. I had forgotten about the poster earlier calling you out about saying the audience never interrupts or how often Maher interrupts a guest. I really didn't mean to be disrepectful to your views or anything, we need more views from both sides educating each other and working together instead of bickering.

That was me and creekdipper's comments I was disputing are still false. This is what he said in response to the reason Maher says he has trouble getting Conservatives on the show...

Creekdipper said: "You mean no one wanted to be the sacrificial lamb that week...cut off by Maher when things got too hot, shouted down by the other panelists (and guest), and hooted at by the hand-picked studio mob?"


Break this down...

Creekdipper said: "the sacrificial lamb that week"

- "sacrificial lamb" - strong symbolism indicating that the Conservatives are treated disrespectfully and poorly by the show. I don't see this happening at all. Bill Maher and the audience may disagree with the person, but they aren't treated badly.

- "that week" - and Creekdipper seems to be saying that his claims on what happens to Conservatives on the show happens each and every week on the show and aren't just isolated incidents


Creekdipper said: "cut off by Maher when things got too hot"

- The only time I see Maher cut anyone off is when they say something known to be factually untrue (not "too hot") and he wants to factually correct them (something any host should do), or when the show runs out of time for that segment. But mainly Maher lets people complete what they are saying. (I'm just talking about Bill Maher himself here, because other panelists don't alway do that, but that's not what Creekdipper wrote.)


Creekdipper said: "shouted down by the other panelists (and guest)"

- "shouted down" - there's usually not a lot of shouting on the show at all. Debates back and forth, panelists cutting each other off (yes, I agree that they do that, but not Maher), but not much shouting at all. I think Conservatives who appear seem to have plenty of time to talk, so I think saying they are "shouted down" is a complete and total distortion.


Creekdipper said: "hooted at by the hand-picked studio mob"

- "hooted at" - hmmm, the definition of "Hooting" is that it means loudly shouting out to express derisive disapproval. Yet, on the show, when the Conservatives speak, the audience says nothing and is rather quiet. They do cheer and applaud loudly for stuff they like (and, sorry, but "applause" is not the same as "hooting") and the audience can be disruptive and a bit annoying with the frequent applause, but that's almost always applause for stuff said by the Liberals on the panel, not for the Conservatives (who don't get either applause or hooting, just silence typically).

- "hand-picked studio mob" - people who like Bill Maher and wait in line to see his show are "hand-picked"? And calling the audience a "mob" is just name-calling.

So...

I don't see how anyone who watches the show can think that Creekdipper's comments are anything other than a total distortion and complete misrepresentation of the show. But Creekdipper seems to be on a mission to somehow prove that they do describe the show, even though they still don't.

I'm reviewing old shows and I found one from a couple years ago where, if you play it frame-by-frame you can see Maher slightly roll his eyes at something a black female panelist says. So it seems that so-called "tolerant" liberals like Maher are actually closeted racists and sexists.

In the history of television, has there ever been a live comedy show without an audience?

The O'Reilly Factor.

I see what you did there.

Was it Amy Holmes?

(I'd totally do her.)

Meh'. I'm racist too. I once got scared by a black guy. Holding a knife and charging towards me.

Didn't they produce the documentary about Neda Soltan, the woman murdered during the election protests by pro-Iranian government militia? That didn't come across as having conservative or liberal bias.

Nevermind, I take it back. In parts of the film there are scenes where Neda's family is retelling how she chaffed against conservative theocratic conditions like having to cover her hair in public, and being forced to dress what they consider to be "modest." Then later they show her collection of banned books and one of them is "The Last Temptation of Christ." So I suppose it could be argued that aspects of the documentary were highlighted to promote feminism and secularism.

Not quite, but...

O'Reilly vs Stewart 10/6/12

You're right...Maher reads the TV Talk thread and just started doing the described events in the shows following my complaint. Otherwise, it's simply a remarkable coincidence that none of those things have happened for years & only now started occurring.

Then again, if you could point to where Real Time is archived for free on the internet, it would be fairly simply to select any past show at random to disprove the statement. Without a record, it's hard to prove/disprove either viewpoint.

Aww, that's cute...but I'm perfectly willing to share the title with you.

Do, too.

Nyahh-yah!

I'd like to see Maher book Karen Lewis, Rahm Emmanuel, and a representative of charter schools or advocate for homeschooling associations now that the strike actually did end (reportedly) and classes resume tomorrow.

Be interesting to hear the whole hour devoted to education (although he could open with an interview with an expert of Middle East or other timely news).

"Celebrity guest" brought on last could be director or star of one of the new movies about improving schools currently being advertised on tv.

Rahm Emmanuel isn't a complete idiot....he'd never do Maher's show after all of this mess.

So instead, you watch a show with a host (who you say) is too slanted, reinforces preconceived notions, interrupts people, AND holds 0% of your beliefs, and then come into a thread making multiple, wordy replies that appear to be aimed solely at upsetting fans of said show (or at least inciting arguments) filled with nitpicks, fallacies, and a general disregard of poster's actual points.

Nope, that doesn't sound like trolling at all.

So I've learned that Catholics by doctrine oppose contraceptives but most use them. And in a glaring bit of hypocrisy, denounce insurers for including them in their overall prescription plan without having any idea the exact list of all covered medications.