quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't get how that'd be a negative reaction. Wouldn't that mean you just need to double check her recommendations?
No. She has statistically unlikely reactions, I guess. She's wrong far more often than she's right (IMO). I am less likely to read a book if she has recommended it.
(I couldn't care less who she thinks I should vote for, though.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I ever get rid of the bad taste The Winter of Our Discontent left in my mouth, I'd love to give Eden a shot.
I still get the impression that Oprah was not so much upset over the scandal as she was distraught that Frey had lied to Oprah Winfrey. Blehh, I'm just a cynical jerk when it comes to anything millions of people are fans of I watched as one by one, like dominos, classmates in my reading class showed up to school with A Million Little Pieces in their hands after the controversy came to light. Things like that bother me.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Last night I overheard some people at the next checkout lane over talking about this and got some insight into the "Oprah's endorsement might hurt Obama" perspective. Basically this woman was saying that Oprah had some doctor on who wasn't even a "real" doctor and had endorsed that book that turned out to be fake (Million Little Pieces, I think?) so then this Obama guy might not really be legit, or something.
It was interesting, but I didn't really get to hear the whole conversation to follow where it went from there.
--Enigmatic
Wow, that is almost painful to read. That reasoning makes no sense at all. SO Oprah's been wrong before, she might be wrong about Obama? If this "logic" is at all representative of voters, then it's no wonder we have such awful politicians in office.
I disagree. Oprah has a proven track record of promoting things (people, books, ideas) with little or no research, simply because she has a positive emotional reaction to them. A Million Little Pieces is only one of the more egregious examples.
I simply ignore her opinions on most things, but I can understand why someone (especially someone who used to respect her opinion and got burned) might actually feel that her endorsement is a count against someone.
I don't think we do disagree. My point is that the logic is faulty -- that you would be LESS likely to vote for someone just because Oprah is supporting them. Sure, I have yet to run across a book she likes that I think is worth anything, but that just means I don't read her books. If I liked a book and she happened to recommend it, I wouldn't STOP liking the book. That's the faulty logic here.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it's a question of whether the sub-AKC puppy market should be supported.
But then, I'm not too impressed with AKC dogs. I don't know many dogs, though. But I'm sure these white puppies are probably even worse than the average AKC dog, if they are being bred for that trait.
Okay, to clarify, I've known two AKC dogs, and one was a champion setter who was rather dim. I also know a German Shepherd who appears to have ADD or something. She goes beyond dim to dotty. But in fairness, I believe the prior dogs this family had were also AKC and one of them saved the eldest son from drowning in a canal, and the dogs in between were nice enough that they kept getting Shepherds. Just this last dog is so weird, they are thinking of retiring from dog ownership.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oprah has a proven track record of promoting things (people, books, ideas) with little or no research, simply because she has a positive emotional reaction to them.
I'm not quite sure that's a bad place to start, when thinking about people, books, and ideas.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I liked a book and she happened to recommend it, I wouldn't STOP liking the book. That's the faulty logic here.
It's only faulty if the person has already reached a conclusion (in your example, liking the book). In cases where they have not, there's nothing faulty about the logic at all.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I liked a book and she happened to recommend it, I wouldn't STOP liking the book. That's the faulty logic here.
It's only faulty if the person has already reached a conclusion (in your example, liking the book). In cases where they have not, there's nothing faulty about the logic at all.
I disagree. This logic makes Oprah into some kind of negative force -- anything unproven that Oprah likes must suck.
The logic might make sense if you specifically disagree with all of Oprah's politics. Going back to the book example...if I thought a book sounded good and found out Oprah didn't like it, I might reconsider unless a few people I did trust also recommended it. I happen to hate most of Oprah's book ideas, but this doesn't mean I wouldn't watch a movie she liked or try a new body butter.
Obama isn't a book. He's a politician. I don't point-blank disagree with Oprah's politics and I have trouble believing that anyone who was seriously considering Obama in the first place does.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This logic makes Oprah into some kind of negative force -- anything unproven that Oprah likes must suck.
Yes, "anything unproven that Oprah likes must suck" would be illogical. But no one has said that. You've turned qualified statements into absolutist ones and then attacked the absolutist position.
Each post discussing the possible negative impact of Oprah's endorsement has used qualifier terms such as "might" or "less likely."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't really matter whether they are AKC or not. It does matter that they are using unsound breeding policies, like breeding a female every time she comes into heat, having many many litters out of many females at the same time.
But if I were buying a dog, there is no way I would buy one that was not AKC registered. Why? You can adopt one that isn't. I don't know much about Goldens so I don't know why they don't approve white ones. If it's aesthetic, I am not too concerned. In the breed I know the most about, Shetland Sheepdogs, double merles and color headed whites are a fault. A blue merle is considered a gorgeous color so people breed for it. Problem, if you breed two merles you get double merles, which are predisposed to many health problems including deafness, blindness, and skin conditions. So responsible breeders never breed a merle to a merle, they breed a merle to a tri color.
Pooka, I'm not willing to believe you've only known two akc registered dogs, unless you've only known two purebred dogs. Most puppy mill dogs that come through pet stores are registered, as are almost all dogs from reputable breeders (I know a border collie and a jack russell breeder that do not akc register because they were opposed to them becoming registerable)
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My dog is a pure bred AKC registered Cocker Spaniel, but the next time I'll likely get a puppy from the shelter or a registered breeder, as opposed to a pet shop.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've missed something major. How exactly did this thread evolve from discussing Oprah and Obama to dog breeders?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oprah was promoting some dogs from an off-AKC breeder, which was characterized as a puppy-mill. I could see how her recommendations might make their demand go through the roof.
Though in most cases a recommendation from Oprah is unlikely to increase the net suffering in the world. Okay, maybe in the case of the Secret.
I just want everyone to appreciate that I have not created the dobie "Can Oprah swing an electron?"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have been looking for a link tying the Secret to Quantum Physics. But there's just too much pro-Secret out there on the web.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know exactly what a dobie is, but I gleaned that it had something to do with changing a thread title, possibly making it dirtier. All I know is that I got the mental image of Oprah doing something that I never wanted to imagine Oprah doing.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Dobie was a poster who would post a new thread with a title just barely off from the original. The first post text was a link (usually to some pun-ish sort of thing). He/she was often quite funny, but was then banned for a time (that rarely happens, by the way) for an unrelated foral matter -- maybe it was crashing the forum with some computer program?
Anyway, later imitators have often fell short of the funny, and many oldtimers are sick to death of the "dobie" threads. However, some have been brilliant, e.g., "Good COD, OSC!" (from "Good God, OSC!") and the link to an aptly-named OSC fish site.
When people are especially trying to be polite (like pooka), they mention the "dobie" instead of creating it.
---
Edited to add: Tammy, Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I watched as one by one, like dominos, classmates in my reading class showed up to school with A Million Little Pieces in their hands after the controversy came to light. Things like that bother me.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Oh CT, I wish I could carry your brain around in my head for one day.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
