# VP Debates Thread, or "Beauty and the Beast" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649 "2004-10-05T15:08:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/421 "2004-10-06T21:08:32Z")
Psycho: As Daniel pointed out, the site I was referring to is actually a pretty damn objective website. It’s non-partisan and was the same site that Cheney (attempted to) refer to last night. They freely point out factual errors on both “sides”: the fact that Cheney comes up more often, well, I’d say that’s likely his doing. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/422 "2004-10-06T21:16:19Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > As the purveyor of that particular “fucking blog”, I find it incumbent on me to point out your fallacy. Heh, **rjung** email you? > [@](#): > > While it is true that certain sources are more reputable than others, a source does not need to be well known to be correct… No offense, but your good word is worth exactly zilch. Taking a partisan bloggers word at face value probably isn’t the best course of action, no? > [@](#): > > Or, if you don’t believe me, [check the New York Times](http://news.com.com/Bush,+Kerry+e-mails+seek+post-debate+spin/2100-1028_3-5398888.html) (it’s on CNET but it’s a NYT article). There you go. That is an acceptable ‘cite’. (Which I would think that prolific poster **rjung** would have learned about by now, but apparently not. Daily Kos my ass…) ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/423 "2004-10-06T22:00:24Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Heh, **rjung** email you? My, quite the suspicious one. No though, I just have referrer stats and noticed a few clickthroughs from here, so I checked it out. > [@](#): > > No offense, but your good word is worth exactly zilch. Taking a partisan bloggers word at face value probably isn’t the best course of action, no? Hrmmm, still being suspicious I see. If you bothered to examine my site you’d see that, while I’m no fan of the current administration, I am hardly a blind partisan. And further you will find few to no inaccuracies in terms of information presented. I’d say that my word is worth something, despite the pseudonymity of the internet, and to just blindly dismiss something because it is presented on a “fucking blog” shows a bit of bias on your part, especially considering what is presented is quite plausible. If I made an implausible assertion, and my site was full of very strong and hateful rhetoric and other implausible assertions, then your rejection would be justifiable. As it is, you’re just grasping at straws and throwing in a bit of ad hominem. Kindly quit it. > [@](#): > > There you go. That is an acceptable ‘cite’. (Which I would think that prolific poster **rjung** would have learned about by now, but apparently not. Daily Kos my ass…) Again, what makes them so “acceptable”? I mean, the NYT is a “paper of record” (perhaps _the_ “paper of record”), but I find your insistence on a source revealing in this particular matter. It’s not like we’re talking about a controversial assertion: we’re talking about a dubious yet obviously occurring campaign tactic being utilized by both “sides.” Almost every major political site for both “sides” has been calling for poll swarming for some time now, so it’s hardly surprising that the Bush campaign would send an email about it. For you to go on this “holier than thou” act, as I’ve already said repeatedly, is revealing. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/424 "2004-10-06T22:17:29Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > If you bothered to examine my site you’d see that, while I’m no fan of the current administration, I am hardly a blind partisan. You certainly aren’t! You announce your non-partisanship thusly: > [@](#): > > \*\* > **I just finished sending out over 50 IMs asking people to forward a message asking them to vote for John Kerry in November.** \*\* You are a shining pillar of non-partisanship, huh? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I’d say that my word is worth something, despite the pseudonymity of the internet, and to just blindly dismiss something because it is presented on a “fucking blog” shows a bit of bias on your part, especially considering what is presented is quite plausible. If you honestly believe the above, then you are delightfully naive. I doubt that, though. My guess is ‘Just another hack partisan blogger’. > [@](#): > > Again, what makes them so “acceptable”? I mean, the NYT is a “paper of record” (perhaps _the_ “paper of record”), but I find your insistence on a source revealing in this particular matter. Revealing of my desire to see a factual story, perhaps. Revealing of my distrust of various partisan sources, perhaps. But revealing of anything else? Nah. You’re just reading into it too much. If you want to be a blogger, great. But a word to the novice: Link to a reputable source along with your screeds. You can say, “Holy poop, Bush stole my dingo!” all you like, but without broader confirmation, don’t expect me to believe you, given the nature of the rest of your oh-so-insightful posts at your blog. ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/425 "2004-10-06T22:31:31Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You certainly aren’t! You announce your non-partisanship thusly: > > **I just finished sending out over 50 IMs asking people to forward a message asking them to vote for John Kerry in November.** > > You are a shining pillar of non-partisanship, huh? :rolleyes: If you’d examined the blog more fully you’d see that that was actually posted by a different editor. But hey, you’re too good for actually examining the sources you blindly dismiss, right? In any case, I’ve not claimed to be purely non-partisan, and I openly acknowledge that I am not a fan of the current administration and will be voting for Kerry come November. Then again, that’s true of, well, about half of this country, and I doubt that it means that half of this country cannot be trusted. The linked post was made by a friend of mine who, yes, is more active partisanly than me. However he’s still hardly a blind partisan, and furthermore I have seen the email as well and will vouch for its authenticy. And, as I said, it’s a quite plausible assertion (and a true assertion, might I add), so your denial is, as I said, quite revealing. > [@](#): > > If you honestly believe the above, then you are delightfully naive. I doubt that, though. My guess is ‘Just another hack partisan blogger’. I do not honestly believe the aforementioned text as I did not say it, and I would appreciate if you lost the sneer and rhetoric. Seriously. It doesn’t matter if I’m Mickey Mouse or Hitler, the validity of my assertions is affected only by the validity of my assertions and not by any slander or labels you wish to throw at me. > [@](#): > > Revealing of my desire to see a factual story, perhaps. Revealing of my distrust of various partisan sources, perhaps. But revealing of anything else? Nah. You’re just reading into it too much. Again, you’re just making assertions without backing them up. My site is hardly as partisan as you make it out to be, and even if it were that doesn’t make it automatically wrong. The point is that a plausible assertion was made and you blindly denied it due to your own personal prejudices. That is revealing of more than just your “desires to see a factual story.” > [@](#): > > If you want to be a blogger, great. But a word to the novice: Link to a reputable source along with your screeds. You can say, “Holy poop, Bush stole my dingo!” all you like, but without broader confirmation, don’t expect me to believe you, given the nature of the rest of your oh-so-insightful posts at your blog. If you want to lose the demeaning rhetoric, great. But a word to the vainglorious: take a logic class so you insert some substance with your condemnations. You can say “Oh no, a lefty said it so it must be wrong!” all you like, but without broader confirmation, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously, given the nature of the rest of your oh-so-brilliant posts at your forum. ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/426 "2004-10-06T22:41:56Z")
Sorry, misread a bit of your post. When you said: [QUOTE] If you honestly believe the above, then you are delightfully naive. I doubt that, though. My guess is ‘Just another hack partisan blogger’. [/quote[ …you were referring to: > [@](#): > > I’d say that my word is worth something, despite the pseudonymity of the internet, and to just blindly dismiss something because it is presented on a “fucking blog” shows a bit of bias on your part, especially considering what is presented is quite plausible. …which I did indeed say, and will stand by as well, it’s true. You’ve provided plenty of rhetoric against it but little to no reason. Mind adding some substance to your screeching? On a somewhat related note, I’d like to remind you that the assertion is indeed _true_, even according to your vaunted NYT, so really you’re basically just being stubborn. But hey, so be it… ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/427 "2004-10-06T23:07:46Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > …Again, you’re just making assertions without backing them up. My site is hardly as partisan as you make it out to be, and even if it were that doesn’t make it automatically wrong. The point is that a plausible assertion was made and you blindly denied it due to your own personal prejudices. That is revealing of more than just your “desires to see a factual story.”. What I surmise, thusfar: 1. You love the word ‘revealing’. _Love_ it. 2. What is posted at a Lefty blog may or may be factually correct. I am not going to wade through the crap to get to the daisies, though. If an item is factually correct, surely it is no difficult matter to just link to a reputable source, no? (As you did here, but not at your blog.) 3. I don’t know who you are. The blurb linked to by Kos was to one ‘Juan’. The bit I quoted from from one ‘Juan’. How many ‘editors’ named ‘Juan’ do you have there? Great comment from the Wizard of Space and Time, Juan, in that one, though: > [@](#): > > Aight yo I hate to bring up politics, but I’m voting for John Kerry in November… Word up on the politics tip, yo! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/428 "2004-10-06T23:17:35Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > Psycho: As Daniel pointed out, the site I was referring to is actually a pretty damn objective website. It’s non-partisan and was the same site that Cheney (attempted to) refer to last night. They freely point out factual errors on both “sides”: the fact that Cheney comes up more often, well, I’d say that’s likely his doing. Yes, but as they have apparently pointed out on the Daily Show (specifically in reference to Iraq, I believe), the facts themselves have an anti-Bush bias. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/429 "2004-10-06T23:21:26Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > What I surmise, thusfar: > > 1. You love the word ‘revealing’. _Love_ it. Well, it’s a good word, and quite applicable in your case. Nothing wrong with that. > [@](#): > > 1. What is posted at a Lefty blog may or may be factually correct. I am not going to wade through the crap to get to the daisies, though. If an item is factually correct, surely it is no difficult matter to just link to a reputable source, no? (As you did here, but not at your blog.) What is posted _anywhere_, even at a “reputable source” may or may not be factually correct. But, given the plausibility of the assertion and the general feel of the site (e.g. not as blindly partisan as you’ve been insisting) I’d say that the assertion is quite believable (and might I add again, true). Your immediate dismissal of it, on the other hand, reveals (yes, that word) a bit of bias. Would you have done the same thing if it were a right-leaning blog? I generally do link to sources, but in this case I’ve seen the email with my own two eyes. A source is not the end-all-be-all. > [@](#): > > 1. I don’t know who you are. The blurb linked to by Kos was to one ‘Juan’. The bit I quoted from from one ‘Juan’. How many ‘editors’ named ‘Juan’ do you have there? There is one Juan, and I am Aaron, as I said, the purveyor of the site. If you had visited my site you would have clearly seen, at the top of the front page, the declaration that the site is maintained by Aaron, and furthermore you would have noticed that the majority of the posts are made by Aaron. Juan makes posts as well, and his tend to be a tad more partisan. 30 seconds of detective work would have shown you this, but as I said you apparently seem to not like to research websites that you blindly dismiss. > [@](#): > > Great comment from the Wizard of Space and Time, Juan, in that one, though: > > Aight yo I hate to bring up politics, but I’m voting for John Kerry in November… > > Word up on the politics tip, yo! Continuing the ad hominem, I see. Verbiage is irrelevant to validity, and you continue to reveal your biases by harping on it. Now, here is what I surmise, heretofore: 1. You love to not actually respond to assertions. _Love_ it. I mean, I make any number of assertions, and instead of responding substantially you pick and choose little irrelevant peccadilloes. It’s really a time-honored tactic here in the world wide web, and you sir are a master at it. 2. You are quite suspicious and inherently distrust anything vaguely “leftist.” As I said above, roughly half of this country agrees with me on this, so do you distrust half of this country? Regardless of partisanship, we’re all in the same boat. We all want the best, we just have different ideas about how to go about it. But generally, “leftists” and “rightists” and “whatever-else-ists” are good people who are not inherently or intentionally deceitful or malicious. 3. You consistently find dismissive rhetoric to be preferable to reason, and you are persistently ignoring the actual _meat_ of the issue: that the assertion _is_ correct, that the Bush campaign _did_ call for swarming online polls and media outlets in general, and that _both_ campaigns are engaging in the same smarmy tactics. Which isn’t surprising, really, just politics as usual… ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/430 "2004-10-06T23:33:35Z")
Aight, yo, I hate to bring up details, but you yourself describe ‘The Proletariat Network’ as ‘Generally speaking, the site is “left-leaning”’. Sure, you also say, ‘but it is not meant to be strictly partisan’, but that is obviously just lip-service, some attempt at appearing impartial. As for the original poll topic, I cede the matter _once a reputable source was cited._ Aight, yo? I am not going to take the word of some poster at a ‘left-leaning’ blog as truth. Even I will take a non-opinion piece from the NYT as a source. Gimme a reliable cite was all I asked, and **rjung** should have known better. ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/431 "2004-10-06T23:46:28Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Aight, yo, I hate to bring up details, but you yourself describe ‘The Proletariat Network’ as ‘Generally speaking, the site is “left-leaning”’. Sure, you also say, ‘but it is not meant to be strictly partisan’, but that is obviously just lip-service, some attempt at appearing impartial. Bring up details? You’re plainly obfuscating and ignoring them, not bringing them up. You’re also continuing to use your unnecessary and demeaning rhetoric. In any case, it is not lip service whatsoever, and it is not an attempt to appear impartial either, so you’re 0 for 2. Rather, it’s an honest and truthful assertion, and an attempt to show that the site is not blindly partisan. There are degrees of partisanship, you know. And as I’ve been saying, being partisan does not exclude somebody from being truthful. Do you distrust the half or so of this nation that doesn’t like Bush? > [@](#): > > As for the original poll topic, I cede the matter _once a reputable source was cited._ Aight, yo? I am not going to take the word of some poster at a ‘left-leaning’ blog as truth. Even I will take a non-opinion piece from the NYT as a source. Gimme a reliable cite was all I asked, and **rjung** should have known better. As for the original topic, you continue to be ignoring the fact that I was and am actually _right_ - I’d almost suggest that an apology is in order, as you have slandered me and my website, but this is just the internet and some folks like throwing around excessively vituperative rhetoric. The assertion was clearly plausible, the content of the site was generally reasonable, and it’s been obviously true for awhile now that both “sides” have been mobilizing to swarm online polls and the media. Your stubborn denial of it and ad hominem attacks on my website are, if I may use the word yet again, quite revealing. Let me ask you one more time: would you have done the same thing if the blog was right-leaning? Meanwhile, let me repeat/summarize just a few of my assertions, since you seem to be again ignoring them. 1. What is posted _anywhere_, even at a “reputable source” may or may not be factually correct, and your insistence for a “reputable source” while the assertion is quite plausible is, yes, revealing. 2. You consistently find dismissive rhetoric to be preferable to reason: ad hominem (“against the man” or something along those lines) is a fallacy, and your bravado doesn’t make you right either. 3. You never admit when you’re wrong. I’ve clearly and cleanly responded to a number of your assertions, and rather than politely acknowledging or responding substantially you ignore it and try and change the topic. Again, maybe you take after Mr. Cheney… ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/432 "2004-10-07T00:05:27Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Yep, same here. Jack McCoy for president! No - he’s too keen on the death penalty - maybe even Bushites would approve of him. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/433 "2004-10-07T00:16:55Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > Rather, it’s an honest and truthful assertion, and an attempt to show that the site is not blindly partisan. Out of curiousity, what blurb over at ‘The Proletariat’ would you consider non-partisan? > [@](#): > > There are degrees of partisanship, you know. And as I’ve been saying, being partisan does not exclude somebody from being truthful. It still doesn’t keep the hard-Left from linking to a reputable source, you know. That is standard practice at the blogs I read. > [@](#): > > As for the original topic, you continue to be ignoring the fact that I was and am actually _right_ Which was only verified once a link was given. My concern was with the low standard of the ‘source’ being originally provided. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you one more time: would you have done the same thing if the blog was right-leaning? The right-leaning blogs I read link to the news items they are talking about. Granted, some good reading was to be had during the CBS forgeries flap; It was good to see that annoying ‘Daily Kos’ so lapdog-ishly defend the veracity of the forgeries, only to be slapped down so hard. > [@](#): > > 1. What is posted _anywhere_, even at a “reputable source” may or may not be factually correct, and your insistence for a “reputable source” while the assertion is quite plausible is, yes, revealing. I don’t think you get it. That 800-lb gorilla of the blogosphere, ‘The Proletariat’, does not strike me as a source that I should blindly accept as 100% accurate and truthful. Higher standards, and all that. > [@](#): > > 1. You consistently find dismissive rhetoric to be preferable to reason: ad hominem (“against the man” or something along those lines) is a fallacy, and your bravado doesn’t make you right either. Thanks for sort of explaining what ‘ad hominem’ means! I always thought it was a something to do with luncheon meats. Besides, I am not engaging in oscar meyer attacks against _you_, only your blog that you seem to think is more important or influential than it actually is. Be realistic here. Anybody can get themselves a free blog and write whatever the heck they want. > [@](#): > > 1. You never admit when you’re wrong. I’ve clearly and cleanly responded to a number of your assertions, and rather than politely acknowledging or responding substantially you ignore it and try and change the topic. Again, maybe you take after Mr. Cheney… I was never ‘wrong’, per se. I never said that the right never tries to skew polls or anything like that. I was only asking for proof that it was so. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/434 "2004-10-07T00:22:08Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > 1. You never admit when you’re wrong. I’ve clearly and cleanly responded to a number of your assertions, and rather than politely acknowledging or responding substantially you ignore it and try and change the topic. Again, maybe you take after Mr. Cheney… OTOH, Proles, maybe Brutus **is** Mr. Cheney. That would explain a lot! ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/435 "2004-10-07T01:09:34Z")
Damn, seems like there ought to be a new member discount for anyone using both vituperative and peccadillos in their first thread. Has anyone welcomed Proles yet? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/436 "2004-10-07T01:40:23Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > I was never ‘wrong’, per se. _Bill? Bill Clinton? Is that you???_ ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/437 "2004-10-07T03:35:46Z")
**Proles:** Please stop trying to use logic with **Brutus**. It is a complete waste of your time. ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/438 "2004-10-07T03:49:04Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Out of curiousity, what blurb over at ‘The Proletariat’ would you consider non-partisan? Misrepresentation: nowhere have I claimed to be non-partisan, I’ve simply said that I am and my blog are not blindly partisan. I would add that we’re likely all partisan in some way and to some degree, and that being partisan does not preclude one from being correct. As such, your attack of my site being partisan is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > It still doesn’t keep the hard-Left from linking to a reputable source, you know. That is standard practice at the blogs I read. As I’ve said, I do for most entries, but in this case I have seen the email with my own two eyes. That’s a good enough source for me, and most of my readers are not overly suspicious like you. Furthermore, think about it: if I was going to make something up, I’d come up with something much better than that. And as I said, the assertion is very plausible and jives with what you’ll see if you go to any major political website. For you to take issue with it, again, reveals bias. > [@](#): > > Which was only verified once a link was given. My concern was with the low standard of the ‘source’ being originally provided. No, if you get philosophical about it it’s still not verified until you’ve seen it with your own two eyes (and even then that’s assuming you can trust your perceptions). Even the New York Times is not the word of God, much less my website. But you’re missing the point in all this, as I’ve not been claiming that you should blindly accept my website as the word of truth: I’ve been taking issue with your immediate and extreme rejection of it. I’m not saying my website should be seen as automatically right in your eyes, rather that your seeing of it as automatically wrong reveals your own personal prejudice. > [@](#): > > The right-leaning blogs I read link to the news items they are talking about. Granted, some good reading was to be had during the CBS forgeries flap; It was good to see that annoying ‘Daily Kos’ so lapdog-ishly defend the veracity of the forgeries, only to be slapped down so hard. As someone who frequents any number of blogs across the political spectrum, I can tell you that right and left leaning blogs (like right and left leaning people) are remarkably similar. Both make good points, both commit fallacies - both have good and bad writing - both source sometimes and don’t at other times. Your attempt to place right-leaning blogs on a higher pedestal is much like your earlier attempt to argue that only the lefty community swarms polls. And, like that earlier assertion, it is quite incorrect. That, and your CBS bit is irrelevant, but if you want an amusing take on that issue I suggest [this comic](http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17762). > [@](#): > > I don’t think you get it. That 800-lb gorilla of the blogosphere, ‘The Proletariat’, does not strike me as a source that I should blindly accept as 100% accurate and truthful. Higher standards, and all that. Ah yes, the “you don’t get it” line. A wonderful way to reinforce dogma: I mean, everyone would agree with _you_ if only they _got it_. I propose this: I _do_ get it (in fact, since the issue at stake is _my blog_ I humbly suggest that I might _get it_ better than you, or at least be better informed on it), I simply and honestly disagree with you because we are, after all, two different people. In any case, as I said earlier, nowhere have I claimed you should blindly accept the word of me or my site. I’ve simply taken issue with your blind rejection: I’d be happy if you took a state of doubt, in between. That’s the stance I take on most everything in the end, anyway. > [@](#): > > Thanks for sort of explaining what ‘ad hominem’ means! You’re welcome, you seemed to need to know. > [@](#): > > I always thought it was a something to do with luncheon meats. Besides, I am not engaging in oscar meyer attacks against _you_, only your blog that you seem to think is more important or influential than it actually is. Be realistic here. Anybody can get themselves a free blog and write whatever the heck they want. Straw man: you’re attacking assertions I’ve never made. Nowhere have I claimed to be important or influential. I fully acknowledge that my blog is just a little site where I post what I want, that there are many out there like it, that many blogs suck most of the time, and that my blog is by no means always excellent (or even often excellent). But, my blog is my word, and by attacking and misrepresenting it you attack me by proxy. Furthermore, you most definitely _have_ engaged in ad hominem against me directly, be it accusations of naivety or sarcastic assertions regarding non-partisanship. That, and there is your constant demeaning rhetoric, which does not strengthen your case. > [@](#): > > I was never ‘wrong’, per se. I never said that the right never tries to skew polls or anything like that. I was only asking for proof that it was so. Heh this one is just funny. I’m going to have to agree with FearItself on this. Also, I’d say that you most definitely have made accusations and assertions that I have shown to be, at best, out of context and misguided, and at worst, fallacious and perhaps ignorantly or maliciously so. As such, an acknowledgment or even apology would be a considerate thing to do. That said, I do not demand or even expect such a thing, because as I said this is the internet and chivalry and decorum are often lacking. To summarize: 1. You made negative assertions regarding my website. 2. I noticed them thanks to referral stats. 3. Your blind rejection and negative assertions reveal prejudice. 4. I am not claiming to be absolutely correct, but am simply asserting that you cannot reject me as absolutely incorrect either, as you did in your initial posts about my site. 5. Your rhetoric, demeanor, ad hominem fallacies, and whatever else, well, they don’t help you. Reread my posts as necessary as I believe I’ve said most of what I’m going to say on them, suffice it to say that while I am far from perfect (my main foible tends to be my pedantry) I do my best to follow logic and reason in my posts, and would be appreciative if you did the same. Anyhoo… Zombies: Heh, he might be. I know if I ever became a prominent public figure I’d try and maintain an online persona to blow of some steam every now and then. fessie: a few people have acknowledged me, I guess. In any case, thanks, though I don’t know that I’m necessarily sticking around. I’ve been aware of Straight Dope for awhile but never really followed the boards before. I mostly came here to clear up a bit of slander about my corner of the web. ---
**Author:** ![Proles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Proles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Proles)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/439 "2004-10-07T03:58:27Z")
Eh, one misstatement for that long a post, not bad. Does subscribing give me the ability to actually edit posts? In any case, when I said: “Misrepresentation: nowhere have I claimed to be non-partisan, I’ve simply said that I am and my blog are not blindly partisan.” …it’s pretty obvious that the “am” doesn’t belong there. And Frostillicus, heh, well maybe but I still try and embrace logic even when others don’t seem to be doing the same. Maybe not the wisest long-term tactic, but for whatever reason I’m compelled to do it nonetheless… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649/440 "2004-10-07T04:15:43Z")
> [@Proles](#): > > Eh, one misstatement for that long a post, not bad. Does subscribing give me the ability to actually edit posts? Unfortunately, no. In that past, I am told, posters were able to edit their posts (though that was before my time), some people would come to the site, stir up trouble, and then, when called on it, went back and edited what they had said. Apparently, it caused so much bother that the admins were forced to turn off the editing feature-unless one was a mod or such. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vp-debates-thread-or-beauty-and-the-beast/267649.md?page=23)