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 #84: Quote [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
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. Quote
"so, if indeed you are just a good person who wants questions answered, then my suggestion is that you start behaving as such."

That statement turned out to be as valid as I figured it was. The questions I asked were simple questions that are just about basic facts. It doesn't matter about who I am. I listened to a radio interview of you on Brad Blog. You told them you couldn't answer most questions too. To get answers, I'm supposed to pass a good faith test. But to pass the test, I have to drop my skepticism. So the rule here is that skeptics can't ask questions. That's very convenient.

You keep attributing statements to me that I never made. I did say I had doubts about your first report on the Connell crash. That's because several details were inaccurate. When the Connell story broke, there was a rush of people trying to analyze the details. It was worth mentioning at the time that the details people were relying on were not necessarily accurate. You admitted shortly after posting your first blog entry that you got details wrong in a rush to get the story out. Getting details wrong is what raised my doubts about the entire blog entry.

One of those details was where you wrote, "I know he was going to DC last night, but I don't know why." Here's a link to your own blog: http://www.atlargely.com/2008/12/one-of-my-sources-died...

You keep saying I made false accusations but the inaccurate statement is still up on your blog. I wrote that Mr. Connell was in fact coming from College Park, Maryland. I didn't say anything about Pennsylvania. Here's the link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I gave several good reasons for skepticism. One is that if Mr. Connell was facing his own death he would be unlikely to talk to reporters and risk getting himself killed. That's just common sense. Its also unusual that a lifelong Republican activist with give exclusive self damning information to a left wing blogger. Is skepticism prohibited? If somebody looks into your work to assess whether your claims are true, does that make the person some kind of deranged stalker? If you search what I wrote on the Internet, does that mean you are stalking me?

I have not accused you of lying. I've come close with my strong skepticism, but to this day I'm not convinced either way about whether what you said happened actually happened. Mrs. Connell verified in this latest article about her that you two at least talked sometime somewhere, so that part of my doubts no longer exists.

I have not libeled you. Throughout this, I'm the one who has been falsely accused. For example, I never made any dishonest claims about who owns you or funds you. I have no idea whether you even get paid.

If you search my previous posts, and even the ones at the link above, you'd see that I've often questioned other parts of this conspiracy theory that have nothing to do with you. Most often, I've questioned the early development of the conspiracy to threaten idea, since it made no sense under the circumstances and the source for much of the information was an anonymous tipster. I recently posted an article here in Election Reform that was about crash investigators finding causes for the plane crash other than sabotage.

I asked the MarkCrispinMiller blog if their interview would be posted because they wrote that they were going to "send out" the interview. I didn't know if that meant that it would be E-mailed to people on their mailing list or if the interview would be posted at the site.

I posted something at the one other blog that was something I wrote about the contradictions of the earliest forms of this conspiracy theory. What I wrote there didn't involve you, except a general statement that later versions of the conspiracy theory aren't backed up.

I'm willing to be questioned on what I write. Can you say the same?

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