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

Reply #82: I'm waiting for OnTheOtherHand to prove his allegation-"Fact-checking never was your forte." [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 Sat Jan-24-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. I'm waiting for OnTheOtherHand to prove his allegation-"Fact-checking never was your forte."
Please provide examples of my poor fact-checking.

What do you mean by this?

And, while you're at it, what do you mean by this?

"I've encountered many people in election integrity work who act in ways that, to me, don't constitute "good faith." They may be abusive; they may be narcissistic; they may be astonishingly slipshod with facts; in some cases they seem to be sociopathic." --OnTheOtherHand

Please give examples of election integrity workers

--not having "good faith"
--being abusive
--being narcissistic
--being astonishingly slipshod with facts
--being sociopathic

It's hard for me to believe that you don't have an agenda here of further harassing an election fraud investigator, Larisa Alexandrovna.

And here's a third example from this thread of your wasting her time...

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.

Response to Reply #53
69. I couldna care less

This guy(?) linked to an article, and it has sparked a bunch of handwringing posts about his motivations for doing so. I find that very, very unimpressive and uninteresting. Unfortunately, the article isn't very interesting, either. So the thread is pretty much a social psych case study at this point.


You at once call her objection to slander, lies and wrong information "handwringing," and describe her concerns about this as "unimpressive and uninteresting," and her efforts to defend herself as "a social psych study"--because the OP article bores you, as if that were her fault.

You thus link her to all the epithets you have used above to describe election integrity workers--while providing no evidence whatsoever that these further slanders--of whole rooms full of election integrity workers, it seems--are abusive, narcissistic, sociopathic and so on.

Why does the OP article bore you? Because it doesn't fit your agenda of debunking election fraud. You're disappointed, because the OP article presents the election fraud lawsuit in a fairly straightforward manner, in the first half of the article. It is the second half of the article--about Mike Connell--that becomes bizarre.

Maybe you ought to do some self-reflection, and ask yourself if the words you use to slander the election integrity movement are not the result of incidents in which you provoked people by not listening, by not giving them respect and/or by calling them names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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