Gigo:
Minty’s calling me a liar seems to have nothing to do with my posting the cite from the “blogster,” but rather that I’ve purposefully misrepresented cites.
As I think I made clear in that thread and in this one, I would support a skeptical attitude towards the cite unless and until it’s corroborated.
I don’t support dismissal or baseless accusations.
Scylla, considering all the other information regarding the case, the accusation they posted is baseless,
All the other sources have corroboration that there was no case against Gore.
Skeptically, your source is the one that has the short end, and indeed, we have a base and a reason to dismiss that report.
gigo:
That’s not true. Two other cites are suggestive that there are specific complaints concerning the Gore/Clinton administration and the secret service.
Nor has any reason been offered to dismiss the report other than the assertion that it’s “blog.”
If you like we can discuss it in that thread, unless of course you feel that my posting that cite is reason enough to call me a liar.
Gigo:
but FYI, Contreras the author of that piece being dismissed is both a published author of two books available at Amazon.com, and his bio says that he is the longest running continuously published Hispanic columnist in the country.
He appears to be a credentialed mainstream reporter, so an allegation that he is fabricating would be very serious.
I don’t think it should be made lightly or dismissively with a perjorative.
“possible”, “sugestive”, “appears” :rolleyes:
Is that what a skeptic is supposed to be doing? Begging that something that is unlikely be real?
Gigo:
Yes. I’m being careful with my assertions. That’s a good way to be skeptical.
So, you acknowledge that it is more likely that that report on Gore was not reliable?
Since the standard here is to doubt even the more reliable reports, it follows that the quote on the OP also suffers the same fate.
Since there are doubts on the truthfulness of that, you are the one not being a skeptic here.
That’s a good way to pretend you aren’t spreading lies.
It is POSSIBLE that we are being visited by spacecraft from other worlds. It COULD BE that the occupants of those craft are performing experiments on unsuspecting humans. It MAY BE TRUE that these beings have replaced our leaders with alien replicants bent on destroying the people of Earth. And I have a source to back it up! http://www.artbell.com
Very skeptical of you, Scylla.
Is it just me, or does anybody else’s brain hurt when you read this thread?
Minty’s right. Scylla thinks that facts are Hanes underwear and he is Inspector 12.
Contreras is a published author, longstanding columnist, a presumably credentialled reporter, and has been writing on the political beat for 14 years.
Is that what “blog” means?
Because it looks to me like you’re calling him a liar and saying he fabricated a material fact, and that you’re doing so without the slightest suggestion that he has ever lied or fabricated in his fourteen years as a continuously published columnist.
It looks to me like “blog” is a perjorative, meaning some kind of amateur hack. He’s been called without any substantiation while in fact, a casual check of Amazon.com reveals he is in fact a professional journalist.
If you wish to attack his journalistic integrity, go for it.
Looks to me like more casual accusations.
Minty:
What does “blog” mean?
No, the truck thing is not offensive, as no reasonable person could possibly construe it as a serious assertion of fact. It is, however, a lie. Your intentional falsehoods about the Sister Souljah incident could easily be mistaken as serious assertions of fact–indeed, I believed you were making them as such, until you settled on the hyperbole excuse.
Reportedly, George Bush is a retarded cocaine fiend bent on the extermination of black people in America. Reportedly.
Piss off. I checked out the report before I called him a liar. Everything came back negative. Hence, I concluded that his accusation is baseless, malicious bullshit. Your refusal to acknowledge the accusation’s falsity says much about the desperation of your search for mud to sling at your political opponents.
Minty:
Then were you lying when you said it was “blog?”
It seems to that if you’d checked it out you would have seen it wasn’t.
I believe this is a falsehood. Where did you find a cite that said it didn’t happen? You looked around on the net for how many minutes attempting to corroborate the report?
Your inability to find positive corroboration in a ten minute web search is unimpressive and hardly grounds for calling a professional journalist a liar.
Has he lied elsewhere?
He’s been a continuously published columnist for fourteen years. On what grounds do you slander his journalistic integrity?
Bullshit. I’m skeptical. Maybe it’s true. Maybe not. I don’t know.
For a person who so casually questions others’ integrity you don’t seem to be showing much.
Scylla, a blog is a web log, kind of like a diary on-line for everyone to read. It does not mean that it is false.
Haj
We should not lose the fact that Raoul’s quote came with the line “according to a lawsuit filed” as others showed, Gore, or his alleged remarks, were not part of the lawsuit. This afirmation from Contreras is not the truth.
Especially when one considers he did not provide a quote.
I thought this was a rhetorical question, but I suppose it’s still possible to be ignorant of this fairly common term.
“blog” is short for “web log,” a term for a journal-like website maintained someone… a place to rant or post whatever random thoughts flit across their heads. Weblogs are (generally speaking) not associated with large publications, and are certainly not subject to fact-checking or verification.
For example, Tom Tomorrow’s weblog is entertaining at times, but I don’t consider it a source of reliable information, though Tomorrow at least links to his sources.
A weblog is generally regarded as a pretty weak information source in itself. Absent a verifying source, most “skeptics” will not rely on any weblog for valid information. To make a comparison in Doper terms, blogs are more like the BBQ Pit than they are a Great Debate.
It’s a contraction for “weblog”–an online journal/repository of thoughts, etc. Lileks’ “Daily Bleat” is a blog, f’r’instance.
Carry on.
Your site is a self-described blog (“weblog,” in case you really didn’t know the meaning). Raoul Lowery Contreras writes syndicated screeds that appear on web pages and a small number of newspapers I’ve never heard of before. He is or was also apparently an AM radio talk show host (“KCBQ-1170AM at 11:30 a.m. Sundays”). He is by no stretch of the imagination a “reporter,” any more than George Will or Molly Ivins is a “reporter.” He’s an essentially unknown commentator who apparently has no objection to making shit up when it serves his rhetorical and political purposes. Find something that says confirms his accusation, Scylla. Go on, prove me wrong in my assessment that he’s a sack of turds.
I guess that makes Rush Limbaugh a “journalist” too, huh? How about Bill Maher, is he a journalist? Golly, I guess anyone who comments on the news is a journalist, huh?
Incidentally, here’s how Amazon actually describes him: