You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #76: You did it twice (at least). [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. You did it twice (at least).

Hissyspit
31. Larisa is not an "RS blogger."

--

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #31
42. since when is "blogger" an attack?

Josh Marshall was named Blogger of the Year by The Week, and also won a Polk. I don't know whether Larisa has done anything Polk-worthy, but I really don't know why it would be offensive to refer to her as a blogger.

--

lala_rawraw
Response to Reply #42
51. um...

I did not say I was offended nor would I claim to have done anything polk-worthy... i think Hissy is speaking to the OP and their habits... long story, but I think that is what Hissy means.

--

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #51
67. certainly, you said no such thing n/t

--

Hissyspit
Response to Reply #42
65. Larisa does not "blog" on Raw Story. Updated at 9:32 PM

She posts investigative journalism pieces. She does have a blog. I have a blog. I refer to myself as a blogger. But Larisa does not blog on Raw Story and the OP has a history and the article has an agenda. Context.

--

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #65
68. huh?

Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 03:43 AM by OnTheOtherHand

You're slicing pretty fine here. It's true (AFAIK) that L.A. doesn't have a blog on Raw Story. Raw Story itself may not be a blog, but it is sufficiently bloggy to post: "Want a distinctive Raw Story logo that you can add to your blogroll or personal web page?" ETA: My point is that whether or not it's strictly accurate to call L.A. an "RS blogger," it seems pretty farfetched to portray it as an "attack."

"...and the OP has a history and the article has an agenda. Context."

So basically you're telling me that your conclusions are predetermined. Good to know.

What is the article's agenda? Why does it make no attempt to assess Spoonamore's claims, for instance? That would seem to matter more than what Heather Connell said, for purposes of figuring out what happened in 2004. (As for figuring out what happened to her husband's plane, I don't assume that she can help with that.) Analytically, it's just a mess. Beyond that (whether it actually fabricates quotations, for instance) I have no way of knowing.

------------------

creeksneakers2 Thu Jan-22-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 03:37 PM by creeksneakers2
43. My subject line just boils down to as few words as I could fashion

(First part not directly relevant to my point--PP)

I've answered lots of questions but few if any of mine have been answered. I think finding out whether elections were stolen and Karl Rove murdered, or whether an elaborate hoax has built to the point in the blogosphere that at least 80 Google pages are about it, are far more important than who I am or what my motivations are. I'm a nobody. But on the other hand, I could be right.

--

OnTheOtherHand Thu Jan-22-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 04:10 PM by OnTheOtherHand
44. fallacy of the excluded middle?

(First part not directly relevant to my point--PP)

ETA: But I agree with your broader point: to me it would seem more progressive-like if folks stopped speculating about your motives and focused on figuring out what really happened.

--

lala_rawraw Thu Jan-22-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. as to your last point...

there is a reason why people take issue with the OP... there is a history. it is not the point the person is making now that is at issue, rather, it is the patterns that make this point seem not really in good faith.


---------------------------------

On two occasions on this thread, Larisa has had to defend herself in response to your remarks.

1. In one case, she feels compelled to defend someone who was defending her--Hissyspit's calling Creaksneaker on the attempted put-down of the "blogger" subject line. She ends up having to explain, once again, to you, why Creaksneaker's motives are in question, in posting this putrid article TWICE.

2. You agree with Creaksneakers2 that his/her behavior at DU, and the motivations for that behavior, are not an important issue. Larisa believes that it is. Creeksneakers's posts have been slanderous, and offensive. You "agree with" Creaksneaker's "broader point: to me it would seem more progressive-like if folks stopped speculating about your motives and focused on figuring out what really happened." This is just plain insulting to Larisa. She is an investigative reporter "focused on figuring out what really happened." Creeksneakers has lodged groundless, false, unfactual and distracting attacks against her at DU, repeatedly. She has a right to know why, and to ask why.

------------------------------

I also know you from the Election Forum, for relentlessly attacking the efforts of staticians, Ph.D.'s, and ordinary citizens like me, in trying to figure out what went wrong in 2004. So it does not surprise me to see you show up in one of Creeksneaker's foul posts, coming to his/her defense, in one more attack on Larisa--and sounding all "progressive-like," like you just want to know what really happened.

And now you have attacked me as well.

"Fact-checking never was your forte, but goodness."--OnTheOtherHand

Prove it! What facts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC