Reply #89: Ahh... it wasn't really a "worldview"... was it?

[tommcintyre]

I suggest reading more closely what was actually written (maybe lifting quotes from the post you are asking for a reply to would help - personally, I find that very useful). For example: I said, "...what fighting election fraud is like...", and "...this is NOT the best forum to "assume...".

Now, right away, these two passages would tip me off that the person WAS NOT expressing a "worldview", but rather, views specific to: 1) "fighting election fraud", and 2) this "forum". Does that make sense to you?

So, your statement actually starts off with an "erroneous" assumption in it, doesn't it? "You described a process and worldview that could lead you to an erroneous conclusion..." IMO, that's a bad way to start off. It's similar to labeling people as "paranoid", etc., when they are just expressing their concerns in a very serious situation, don't you think?

Finally, you say: "...but you did not say what you might do if you found out you were doing damage to someone you would like and respect?" Actually, what you really said originally: "...what you would do if you had made bad assumptions and were doing damage to someone who you would normally like and respect? <bolding mine>

Actually, I thought I had answered that clearly enough; although admittedly in a circumspect way. (To follow the rules of the message board, as I am also doing here.)

It comes down to this: Because of the nature of the subject matter of this forum, we (who are seriously fighting to uncover the election fraud); must make assumptions with limited information on many issues (see the car analogy). But, we do our best to make them with as much information as possible (see all the points I laid out in the last post).

On the specific point: "bad assumptions". Three thoughts on this. 1) We all do make assumptions here - after-all, the nature of the medium limits the amount of information we have to work with, doesn't it? 2) Efforts should be made to minimize bad assumptions (i.e. see "contact in good faith", etc. above). 3) Would it be surprising if someone who "correct assumptions" were made about, were to claim bad assumptions were made about them? (For example: That's what Steven Glass did in the movie (described above) in an attempt at "damage control".)

Edit:
I hope you find this helpful.