Oxymorons

by Unknown

Back to The Funnies.

Typhus2005-03-09 19:39:45
Keyless Keyboard
Daganev2005-03-09 19:59:34
QUOTE(Cron @ Mar 9 2005, 07:47 AM)
It's still satire and very well done satire.
Much like those who think Fox news is fair and balanced. wink.gif
69427



You are 90% more likely to hear the spin of the "left" during a NEWS broadcast on Fox news than you are to hear the spin of the "right" on CNN. Granted, 60% of information on such news channels are editorials and not NEWS.

People who get thier "factual" information from sensational movies made for entertainment value are much scarrier than anyone who watches a biased news channel. (i.e. All of them)

Fox News is fair and balanced because it is the -only- news channel that presents the news in a way most people would like it to be given. (i.e without all the political correctness)

As for the SATs. The SATs are so easy now that if you have a 1600 on your SATS your less likely to get into elite schools such as Carnegie Mellon and Harvard (which is a joke school now anyways) than if you get a 1560 - 1590. The reasoning, is that you are considered more "human" if you don't get a perfect score but get close to it. They have adopted this policy because 90% of the people who apply to the school have a 1600 on the sat.

I had a 2.6 GPA (max 4) in school and got a 1470 and then a 1540 on my SATs with studying on my part. Percentile is much more important than test score.
Unknown2005-03-09 20:33:27
QUOTE
Fox News is fair and balanced because it is the -only- news channel that presents the news in a way most people would like it to be given.


Would that be Inside Edition or American Journal style?


Anyway.

"I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully
ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense
system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at
the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to
the level commiserate with keeping the peace." G.W. Bush —Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 23, 2000

Now that's an oxymoron.

Daganev2005-03-09 22:30:32
QUOTE(Cron @ Mar 9 2005, 12:33 PM)
Would that be Inside Edition or American Journal style?
Anyway.
69591



Are you unaware of what it means to be a News show?
Unknown2005-03-10 01:50:18
QUOTE
Are you unaware of what it means to be a News show?


Are you aware that Fox News has more in common with Inside Edition then that they both featured Bill O'Reilly? Like lack of integrity and sensationalism over actual reporting.

Obviously not.
Unknown2005-03-10 04:45:12
QUOTE(daganev @ Mar 9 2005, 02:59 PM)
You are 90% more likely to hear the spin of the "left" during a NEWS broadcast on Fox news than you are to hear the spin of the "right" on CNN.  Granted, 60% of information on such news channels are editorials and not NEWS.

People who get thier "factual" information from sensational movies made for entertainment value are much scarrier than anyone who watches a biased news channel. (i.e. All of them)

Fox News is fair and balanced because it is the -only- news channel that presents the news in a way most people would like it to be given. (i.e without all the political correctness)

As for the SATs. The SATs are so easy now that if you have a 1600 on your SATS your less likely to get into elite schools such as Carnegie Mellon and Harvard (which is a joke school now anyways) than if you get a 1560 - 1590.  The reasoning, is that you are considered more "human" if you don't get a perfect score but get close to it.  They have adopted this policy because 90% of the people who apply to the school have a 1600 on the sat.

I had a 2.6 GPA (max 4) in school and got a 1470 and then a 1540 on my SATs with studying on my part.  Percentile is much more important than test score.
69555



90% of applicants for Carnegie Mellon and Harvard have 1600 SATs? I somehow doubt that.
Unknown2005-03-10 05:32:41
holy war

diplomatic iraq
Daganev2005-03-10 06:01:21
QUOTE(BobStar @ Mar 9 2005, 08:45 PM)
90% of applicants for Carnegie Mellon and Harvard have 1600 SATs? I somehow doubt that.
69959


90% was a bit of an overstatment.

However, in 2000 589 people got 1600s in 2005 that number jumped to closer to 900
source


Its getting so bad that next year the top score will be 2400
source2

UC berkley accepted less than 50% of all appliclants who got a 1600.
Daganev2005-03-10 06:02:25
QUOTE(Cron @ Mar 9 2005, 05:50 PM)
Are you aware that Fox News has more in common with Inside Edition then that they both featured Bill O'Reilly? Like lack of integrity and sensationalism over actual reporting.

Obviously not.
69864




I'm going to wager you have not watched fox news, and have rather only seen clips that others have prepared for you.
Summer2005-03-10 11:57:47
QUOTE(daganev @ Mar 10 2005, 03:59 AM)
As for the SATs. The SATs are so easy now that if you have a 1600 on your SATS your less likely to get into elite schools such as Carnegie Mellon and Harvard (which is a joke school now anyways) than if you get a 1560 - 1590.  The reasoning, is that you are considered more "human" if you don't get a perfect score but get close to it.  They have adopted this policy because 90% of the people who apply to the school have a 1600 on the sat.

I had a 2.6 GPA (max 4) in school and got a 1470 and then a 1540 on my SATs with studying on my part.  Percentile is much more important than test score.
69555


Makes me feel so much less special with my 700 Math and 800 English scores crying.gif But yeah, I'd agree on the percentile thing. Got average to just-passed scores for the most part on my usual exams. But without studying much for either SAT or exams, I guess I can't complain. halo.gif
celahir2005-03-10 12:47:56
Effective Beaucracy
Typhus2005-03-10 19:19:41
Those are really nice scores Summer. Shame on you. Didn't slack enough.

The Honda Truck

Retro gamers

Social Socializism