[QUOTE=ewmayer;342762]So our little "partisan challenge" game may be moot[/QUOTE]A single post could potentially moot your "partisan challenge"?

I just expressed views about evidence for the IRS matter, according to principles that I've personally followed for many years here and in other forums:

a) many instances of what is popularly termed evidence are not actually evidence of what the popular view thinks they prove, when careful thinking is applied, and

b) once I do see satisfactory evidence (as in your post #106 above) of something for which I previously questioned the previous "evidence" (in accordance with a), I usually say so.

I didn't intend, or expect, that my simple post about the latest IRS evidence would absolve me of "extreme political bias". In my mind, those were unconnected.

For the latter ("e__ p__ b__"), do I need simply to post links to instances where my previous posts have followed those general principles?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342763]A single post could potentially moot your "partisan challenge"?

I just expressed views about evidence for the IRS matter, according to principles that I've personally followed for many years here and in other forums:[/QUOTE]

That's precisely why I specified "past posts" (predating my initial challenge - it's a trivial matter for you to "display your newfound openmindedness" as above in order to game the challenge.

And note, my "ire" comes from the frustration of "trying to reason with an unreasonable person." Extreme, blinkered political partisanship here being the form of unreasonableness at issue. So if you are as openminded on political matters as you say, that implies some semblance of balance in discussing the 2 sides which dominate the political debate in this country. I challenge you to show us the historical record of that.

Really - are you finding a mere 3 posts critical of the Obama administration that hard to find? For that matter, have you been able to find even *one*?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342763]A single post could potentially moot your "partisan challenge"?[/QUOTE]

Could. Please provide same.

To share, I just came out of a four hour meeting of all the shareholders of a new company to define the "value statement". It came down to a nine word sentence.

Sometimes less is more....

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342766]it's a trivial matter for you to "display your newfound openmindedness" as above in order to game the challenge.[/QUOTE]What a slanderer you are!

When I started composing my post #107, your post #106, about new evidence in the IRS matter, had not yet appeared on my screen. After i posted #107 (as it turned out), I then read your post #106.

I then composed my post #108 in response to your post #106, in good faith, as nothing to do with the "extreme political bias" thing, but simply, [U]just as I already stated above[/U], in accordance with two principles I've followed regarding sufficiency of evidence. I've done that before (posted that new evidence in some matter was sufficient to convince me), and there I did that again. Your post #106 presented evidence I hadn't seen before, and it did (unlike all previously presented attempts) seem to me to constitute sufficient evidence that there was specific intent to target conservative groups just because they were conservative, so I honestly said so.

It didn't occur to me that you'd twist that into some underhanded scheme by me.

You have grossly misinterpreted my post #108, and I don't think that occurred entirely innocently.

I guess I was naive about the depth of your determination to present a twisted picture of my intentions to readers of this thread, as part of your attempt to rid yourself of someone who dares to point out flaws in your "evidence" and logic.

Obviously, I also misinterpreted your
[QUOTE=ewmayer;342762]So our little "partisan challenge" game may be moot,[/QUOTE] Please consider my post #111 to be a thoroughly confused response, which I wish to withdraw in its entirely.

I will resume my research for meeting the challenge you presented in post #100, but I'm no longer confident that you will uphold your end of the bargain when I meet your specifications.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342766]Extreme, blinkered political partisanship here being the form of unreasonableness at issue.[/QUOTE]... [U]but you've not yet presented any evidence that I have ever exhibited "extreme, blinkered political partisanship" or "extreme political bias"[/U]!

What I do see, repeatedly, is that your ire is roused by my pointing out that your statements are not supported by evidence, or by my posting an article with factual evidence that doesn't conform to your anti-Obama bent.

(I'd appreciate your honest admission of that motive.)

Sorry to pollute your thread with so many mentions of [I]evidence[/I], but [I]evidence[/I] does remain a principal means of separating truth from fiction. Too bad it inhibits your drive to deceive your readers.

I happen to believe that criticism of the Obama (or any other) administration is best achieved [U]when supported by factual evidence, not just a bunch of rhetoric, propaganda, and misinterpretations of IG reports[/U].

[quote]Really - are you finding a mere 3 posts critical of the Obama administration that hard to find? For that matter, have you been able to find even *one*?[/quote]I see no reason to post progress reports for the benefit of a slanderer.

I devote a certain amount of time each day to researching my past posts, taking notes, and listing links and quotes. I will present my results when they are sufficiently complete.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342792]I see no reason to post progress reports for the benefit of a slanderer.

I devote a certain amount of time each day to researching my past posts, taking notes, and listing links and quotes. I will present my results when they are sufficiently complete.[/QUOTE]In which case, please post progress reports for the benefit of the others following this thread.

Unless you consider everyone following this thread slanderous, of course. Saying so on the forum could itself be taken as libellous. (UK law defines the difference between libel and slander. I'm not sure whether US law does the same. In the UK slander is spoken, libel is "written" --- a simplification but an adequate one for present purposes.)

[QUOTE=xilman;342811]In which case, please post progress reports for the benefit of the others following this thread.[/QUOTE]Why? I'm not going to leave this hanging for some long time.

This request for progress reports seems to be just a way of pressuring me to post a quick response, perhaps inspired by the false assertion that this should be "easy" for me. I'd rather post a correct response than a quick faulty one, and I am making steady progress toward constructing that correct response.

[quote]Unless you consider everyone following this thread slanderous, of course.[/quote]No, of course not.

[quote]Saying so on the forum could itself be taken as libellous.[/quote]It was definitely intemperate (and inaccurate) of me.

I apologize for accusing Ernst of slander.

- - -

No comment on the lack of evidence Ernst has (not) presented to support his allegations about me? Why not?

Because Ernst's supposition [that the number of posts I've made criticizing the Obama administration is a valid indicator of my political bias] is incorrect, my research necessarily has to incorporate more than merely such posts. That additional evidence, plus my (developing) dissertation on the nature of evidence will eventually absolve me of Ernst's accusation.

Since some of you seem impatient, here's a simple (lacking some details, but should be sufficient for this purpose) explanation of how Ernst's supposition is incorrect:

1. I cannot possibly expound the full range of my political views on this forum. I just don't have the time.

2. Because of #1, I must select only a portion of my views to expound here.

3. When deciding what portion to expound, _I_ take into consideration [I]the range of political views already expounded by other contributors[/I]. [U]I do not think that my adding a "me, too" is worthwhile.[/U] What _is_ worthwhile is for me to expound [I]views that no one else has expounded[/I]!

Maybe some or most of you don't take that factor into consideration. If you haven't, please stop to do so now, and consider how that applies to my contributions. Do you see me frequently repeating views someone else has already posted? If you don't, isn't that a good thing for the diversity of political discussion here?

If you want to argue that my expressed views are too frequently in some particular area -- show me who else is expressing views in that area besides me. Show me why that particular political area should not be represented on this forum.

If you think my expressed views are too repetitious, show me evidence that anyone else participating regularly here has actually learned what I'm trying to teach. (If you think I'm too repetitious, why is no other repetitious participant accused of "extreme political bias"?)

4. Apparently, some of you think that I am under some obligation to expound my full range of political views in order to avoid being personally attacked for having "extreme political bias". Those of you who think that are making a mistake of confusing [what you read of my words here] with [an even representation of my views].

5. I think it's more valuable for this forum to have a wide range of views than for each and every participant to be required to expound his full personal range of views, [I]especially insofar as such range is already covered by what others express here[/I].

Do you disagree? If so, what is your justification for, in effect, wanting to suppress some views (because of requiring contributors to waste time and energy making other, needlessly duplicative posts) merely for the sake of "proving" that each participant does not have "extreme political bias"?

==> Oh, and why is it just me that faces this dubious requirement? Why does no one else whose posts are lopsided face the accusation of "extreme political bias"? [I]Why is it only the guy who often inconveniently points out flaws in reasoning or evidence who faces that accusation?[/I] <==

6. Of what benefit to this forum would it be for me to chime in with "me, too" for every Obama administration transgression, when it's abundantly evident that other contributors have done, and are doing, a fine job of commenting on those transgressions? That sector of political views looks adequately covered to me.

I don't criticize anyone for pointing out an Obama administration flaw; I criticize folks for flaws in their presentations of evidence or reasoning about such administration mal-doings. As I've written before, [I]I think that criticisms of the Obama (or any other) administration are most effective when they are accurate and well-supported by reliable evidence[/I].

[U]I'm trying to improve the quality of Obama criticism here, not to suppress valid expressions of it.[/U]

My corrective remarks are intended to make your criticisms more accurate and evidence-supported. Is that a bad thing -- [I]or is it just that you've mistakenly assigned a untrue motive to them[/I]?

7. It's quite possible that my aims have been misunderstood because I've not posted a clear explanation of them.

(However, accusing me of "extreme political bias" is not a polite, or effective, way to ask me to post such an explanation. I'd have appreciated a more polite and direct request, and you'd have gotten your explanation sooner in that case.)

Though I have already posted such explanations in the past, the above 1-6 may be more complete than my previous explanations. I hope it's clear.

Some of you apparently think that if I were to post nothing in this thread about this latest revelation (or past threads about other administration mal-doings), that would demonstrate that I have "extreme political bias".

If so, you are wrong. See [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=342847&postcount=118[/URL]

It looks to me like the posters above have covered the subject adequately. I can't think of what I could usefully add right now.

Will I get another accusation from Ernst that this is just a way for me to try to absolve myself from having "extreme political bias"? If so, that "if you don't say anything, you must be opposed to what we say" attitude of Ernst's justification for his challenge to me to prove my non-bias would be quite ironic in this context, wouldn't it?

([b]Failure to comment in the past proves your guilt. Commenting now just shows that you're trying to weasel out of your guilt.[/b]) Think about that. That's what Ernst's message to me has been.

[QUOTE=xilman;342811]Unless you consider everyone following this thread slanderous, of course. Saying so on the forum could itself be taken as libellous. (UK law defines the difference between libel and slander. I'm not sure whether US law does the same. In the UK slander is spoken, libel is "written" --- a simplification but an adequate one for present purposes.)[/QUOTE]

I've long thought UK libel laws to be overbroad ... in any event here in the US (at least last time I checked - the NSA can surely verify precisely when-I-last-checked using their extensive domestic-surveillance records), expressions of personal opinion have a very bar attached to be deemed libelous. It is clear from the context and venue that I was expressing that, in my opinion, Cheesehead is so lopsidedly politically partisan that having any kind of reasoned discussion with him of U.S.-politics-involving issues such as in this thread is impossible, and hence unworthy of devoting time and effort to.

[Similarly, Cheesehead's calling my characterization of him slanderous might be annoying to me, but I doubt it meets the standard for libel. In any event, it would be hypocritical of one such as me who believes in robust debate of issues unfettered by inane-threats-of-legal-action to take serious umbrage at such verbiage.]

I've made it very clear - see post #100 - as to the standard of evidence which will suffice to change my mind on the political-partisanship issue. Given Richard/Cheesehead's long posting history on this forum, in this case specifically long history of politically-opinionated posting, I feel my proposal is very reasonable - and note that I leave it not to me but to the broader readership to weigh any evidence produced.

Again, at issue here is not whether I think Cheesehead is open-minded on matters such as the scientific evidence regarding global warming - it is strictly regarding his record of nonpartisanship (or lack thereof, IMO) in matters of U.S. national 2-party politics. To that end, I feel using postings of opinion regarding recent U.S. presidential administrations and the parties they represent to be a useful proxy.

The fact that Cheesehead himself is seriously considering my proposal tells me it must not be obviously unreasonable. If other readers agree/disagree they are welcome to express their opinion.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342848]That's what Ernst's message to me has been.[/QUOTE]

Grow some balls Cheesehead.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" - Monty Python.