Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

TV news pundits piss me off

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-29 22:08

It\'s like watching a speech but not being able to yell or boo or clap or anything
Personally, I think it\'s the worst medium for news

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-29 22:17

A huge protip is to watch very little (if at all possible absolutely no) television at all. Pundits are nothing more than schemers who are just culling ratings from the susceptible population. Even after all of the subliminal advertising and other things that television technology can throw at you that you can't detect because it is being shown at a level below the threshold of  consciousness; television, after all, is complete shit.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-29 23:54

The US news stations are too cheap to investigate out any stories, so they just sit around and yap about what comes in on their computers.  CNN tried once, but said "fuck it, put Nancy Grace yapping all day long, people love that shit."

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-30 1:05

I have not switched my television on since the start of december

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-30 7:15

>>2
Probably the best advice you will ever here.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-30 7:57

>>5
Probably you will the best ever advice here.

Name: !MILKRIBS4k 2009-04-30 9:24

>>2
Subliminal advertising? You don't really believe that now do you?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-30 9:27

>>7
You're an anus!

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-30 9:35

>>7
Yes I do. Studies were done on subliminal advertising and messages since the inception of the television medium. Cooperations exploit the subconscious mind to get people to buy their products. Such marketing practices are illegal in some countries, however many get away with this since it's difficult to prove in court that a subliminal message or image was put there.

Name: !MILKRIBS4k 2009-04-30 9:44

>>9
Well I have yet to see a subliminal ad on TV so i'm not believing anything till I see one!

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-30 9:53

>>10
fucking brian

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-01 3:54

>>9
that's 1970s bullshit like loch ness monster and the bermuda triangle.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-01 4:59

>>12
You're grouping subliminal messages with the loch ness monster and the bermuda triangle? I don't know about you, but if someone told me that a weird picture was hidden on a can of Coke I'd take that as being more creditable than a monster swimming in a lake or mysterious disappearances of airplane pilots over a certain part of the Atlantic ocean.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-01 16:51

>>13
people see shit that isn't there, same bullshit.  and even if you hide an image in an image, people don't respond to it.  The use of the word "subliminal" isn't even applicable in its actual meaning in the use of sensory/perceptual branch of cognitive science or psychology.  It was a pop culture urban legend thing.  It's also like the 1980s heavy metal backwards messages in the songs bullshit that were supposed to take over your mind.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-01 21:56

>>14
People respond differently to many things. I'm sure there are people out there that possess the ability to not have their subconscious mind affected by images or text. I wouldn't deny there are people out there who can take illicit drugs like cocaine or heroin and not become future abusers of said drugs. The idea that advertisers being interested in subliminal perception is not a newly discovered physiological phenomenon. Historical scholars such as Plato and Aristotle have alluded to a subconscious phenomenon. And Aristotle first noted the relationship between dreams and the unconscious mind.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-01 23:53

>>15
pseudoscience, nonsense, not even Freud would agree anymore

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 0:35

>>16
I disagree.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 1:27

>>17
You don't just disagree, you're right, and
>>14
>>12
>>16
is/are trolling or mistaken.
It's an easy search.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 3:12

>>1
usted necesita bukkake news my estimado greengoes!
achiu achiu
coufh coufh
sniff sniff

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 5:18

>>18 >>17
gullible and stupid and same person

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 5:47

>>20
Wrong again, not the same person.  If you have evidence, present it.  Otherwise STFU 'cause any idiot can google it and find reliable studies.  Troll.  You wanna try and pretend you know some science?  You wanna name drop and pretend you have some understanding of neuropsychology, sense and perception, and psychology?  Here's a line in the sand.  What'cha got?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 6:40

>>21
It's funny how you can type so much yet say nothing of substance.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 6:43

>>21
God you're an asshole.  Is that some kind of troll?  Jumping into a thread, saying something shitty, not contributing, then just going about your miserable way.  I wonder if anyone's tried to classify trolls yet.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 7:26

World4ch needs an ID system once again.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 8:56

>>24
ID systems are mad gay

Name: !MILKRIBS4k 2009-05-02 9:07

>>24
Not if people just used names/tripcodes!

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-02 9:22

It was only there to see if people "samefag'd" their posting. And if you used the sage function your ID would show up as "Heaven". Also, if I remember correctly, the ID wouldn't follow you from thread to thread and board to board.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List