[QUOTE=ewmayer;342428]Spent the weekend indulging your nanoquoting fetish, I see ... man, you need professional help.
[/QUOTE]Readers,

Ernst doesn't let up in his effort to distract you from noticing that he doesn't provide evidence to support his false, dubious or exaggerated claims and personal abuse.

I've been informed by a third party that Ernst's "nanoquoting" term (which he's never defined, so that he can use it as just a vague disparagement) refers to my style of interspersing my response with quotes of what I'm responding to.

Would anyone prefer that I adopt his style, which I think can sometimes be more susceptible to misunderstanding than mine? I [I]could[/I] try posting in a somewhat different style, so we'd see whether that were an improvement.

In some other forums, what I do is a common style. Ernst is only the second or third person to complain about it in the 15+ years I've been using it. (Note: I'm giving Ernst the benefit of the doubt that his "nanoquoting" disparagement is equivalent to a straightforward complaint.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342470][...]I've been informed by a third party that Ernst's "nanoquoting" term (which he's never defined, so that he can use it as just a vague disparagement) refers to my style of interspersing my response with quotes of what I'm responding to.

Would anyone prefer that I adopt his style, which I think can sometimes be more susceptible to misunderstanding than mine? I [I]could[/I] try posting in a somewhat different style, so we'd see whether that were an improvement.

In some other forums, what I do is a common style. Ernst is only the second or third person to complain about it in the 15+ years I've been using it. (Note: I'm giving Ernst the benefit of the doubt that his "nanoquoting" disparagement is equivalent to a straightforward complaint.)[/QUOTE]
My initial reaction is that I like, and have always liked, the clarity which your style gives.

The only thing I might mention is that sometimes your habit of taking [I]everything[/I] up which has been said can lead to over-lengthy posts with a certain amount of repetition. (That repetition is not always evident, just sometimes.) The lengthiness, in particular, can be a bit of a conversation-stopper. So I think you could do well, sometimes, to concentrate on certain parts of other people's posts and let the rest go unchallenged, despite the reduced content which that entails, simply in the interests of keeping the forum a place of discourse rather than dissertation.

Disclaimer: I say the above as a passive reader, one who has rarely if ever really engaged with you in debate. I think that's because I typically personally agree with what you write on many different issues, which rather stifles things in comparison with what happens when people disagree with you. ;-) Those who get involved in lengthy tussles with you will undoubtedly have a wildly different viewpoint from mine.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342392]Instead, you use fantasy phrases such as "extreme political biases" without factual justification rather than confine your accusations to reality.[/QUOTE]

That was an actual phrase used by me, not a fantasy one. But I have a simple way to settle the "extreme political bias" issue - see below.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342392]Do you intend for your readers to accept that as evidence that you were completely accurate and truthful in your assertions about me, the DOJ/AP scandal, or the IRS scandal? Care to post an image of your receipt for the $1000, with an explanation of how it implies your truthfulness about anything else?[/QUOTE]

I added that to demonstrate that I at least may have a modicum of nonpartisanship in my take ... it's actually quite unnecessary for me to do so, as I have a quite-lengthy history of bipartisan ragging-on-those-in-power, probably best captured in the voluminous 5-year-plus-running series of Econ-threads in this same subforum. You on the other hand, have to the best of my knowledge never shown any deviation whatsoever from your monomaniacal, blinkered partisanship. Thus, before wasting any more of my time arguing with the political analog of a religious zealot, here is what I propose:

I will be happy to provide article links supporting my characterization of the above issues by the major press outlets, but before I undertake the time-consuming task of digging through articles I have read over the past few months on both (alleged) scandals, I have a condition - namely that you demonstrate that you possess the tiniest glimmer of open-mindedness and bipartisanship on matters of a U.S.-political nature. Specifically:
[u]
Provide links to at least three separate posts in your entire past-posting history here in which you criticize the Obama administration about any significant issue of governance in unambiguous terms.
[/u]
There are many themes where anyone with an iota of objectivity could have done so - drone wars, the creeping post-9/11 national security state, the failure to prosecute anyone high in the TBTF banks for fraud related to the GFC, the rudderless "print money and hope" economic 'policy', the AP-spying by DOJ, etc. (A Pentagon "warhead" might characterize this as a "target-rich theater of operations.")

Note this which makes your time-wastage burden much less than mine, since it requires you to only search through your posting history on this forum, which you are better-acquainted with than anyone else. It amounts to less than one administration-critical post per year over the course of the Obama presidency, on average.

Given your many hundreds of politically-themed posts, if you have even a shred of political objectivity, that should be easy to do. Note I include the words about governance to rule out purely-political statements which are really criticisms regarding lack of zeal in the Great Jihad against Satanic republicans/conservatives, e.g. "Obama/democrats should have been more aggressive in pointing out republican lies about ...".

As to the judgment of whether the posts you provide satisfy the above criterion - should we even get as far as 3 candidate posts, which I am highly doubtful of - I will be happy to leave that up to a reader poll.

Just 3 posts from nearly 5 years' worth of politically-themed posting. It should be easy.

If you don't like the terms, I am happy to leave you to your echo chamber.

-------

[i]Aside: I believe George first used "nanoquoting" in the public areas of the forum to characterize your posting style. But he plagiarized it from me. I'm OK with that - imitatery being the sincerest form of flattening, and all.[/i]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342503][i]Aside: I believe George first used "nanoquoting" in the public areas of the forum to characterize your posting style. But he plagiarized it from me. I'm OK with that - imitatery being the sincerest form of flattening, and all.[/i][/QUOTE]

My apologies. It was unintentional. I don't keep mental notes of what I see in the public areas and what I see in the private area. The word nanoquoting was indeed coined by Ernst, and I hope he doesn't mind that I allowed it to enter the public domain.

No worries, George - I already gave you my blessing. [We need Ralph Feinnes to make a cameo appearance and give his in-mirror-practice "Eye pahhdon you" from [i]Schindler's List[/i].]

I just wanted the term to receive proper retribution, or something. :)

[i]p.s.: I deliberately left pico-, femto- and attoquoting for anyone else to claim. No need to get hoggish.[/i]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;342485]The only thing I might mention is that sometimes your habit of taking [I]everything[/I] up which has been said < snip > in the interests of keeping the forum a place of discourse rather than dissertation.[/QUOTE]You have a valid point, sir. It's on my makeover list.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342503]But I have a simple way to settle the &quot;extreme political bias&quot; issue - see below.

Provide links to at least three separate posts in your entire past-posting history here in which you criticize the Obama administration about any significant issue of governance in unambiguous terms.
[/QUOTE] While I am conducting my research, will you please:

1) Define &quot;extreme political bias&quot;, and

2) Describe the criterion you use to separate &quot;extreme political bias&quot; from non-extreme political bias?

For our purpose here I am using "grossly one-sided record of political posting" as the criterion. That implies that you have many more than 3 posts which criticize Republicans/conservatives/W-Bush-administration, but I am sure you know as well as I how easily those can be produced. It's the countervailing "evidence of open-mindedness/balance/bipartisanship" that I claim is vanishingly scanty. Your task is to prove me wrong.

Again, to take our personal subjectivity out of things, we will submit your evidentiary posts to reader poll. Fair enough?

Meanwhile, I don;t mind posting key new evidence on the IRS "missteps" as it rolls in [underlines mine, some to emphasize the news outlet's characterization of the story, some to aspects which are new or which I feel are especially noteworthy]

[url=www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-irs-scrutiny-idUSBRE95605X20130607?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Misfired 2010 email alerted IRS officials in Washington of targeting[/url]: [i](Reuters) - A misfired email from a U.S. Internal Revenue Service employee in Cincinnati alerted a number of Washington IRS officials that extra scrutiny was being placed on conservative groups in July 2010, a year earlier than previously acknowledged, according to interviews with IRS workers by congressional investigators.[/i]
[quote]Transcripts of the interviews, reviewed by Reuters on Thursday, provided new details about Washington managers' awareness of the heightened scrutiny applied by front-line IRS agents in Cincinnati to [u]applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups[/u] with words like "Tea Party" in their names.

A political furor over the practice has engulfed the tax agency for nearly a month since a senior IRS official publicly apologized for it at a conference. Since then, the IRS' chief has been fired by President Barack Obama, the FBI has mounted an investigation and Congress has held numerous hearings.

The transcripts show that in July 2010, Elizabeth Hofacre, an IRS official in Cincinnati who was coordinating "emerging issues" for the agency's tax-exempt unit, was corresponding with Washington-based IRS tax attorney Carter Hull.

[u]In April 2010 Hofacre had been put in charge of handling tax-exempt status applications from conservative groups by her Cincinnati supervisor[/u].[/quote]
So we know the IRS grouped such applications by "political leaning".
[quote]She was asked to summarize her initial findings in a spreadsheet and notify a small group of colleagues, including some staff in the Washington tax-exempt unit. However, she sent her email to a larger number of people in Washington by accident.

"Everybody in DC got it by mistake," Hofacre said in the transcripts. She later clarified that she did not mean all officials but those in the IRS Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements unit.

The Cincinnati office, where IRS reviews of applications for tax-exempt status were centralized, used a "be-on-the-lookout" (BOLO) list that included the words "Tea Party" and "Patriot" for flagging applications for extra review.

This practice has drawn criticism. However, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which closely studied the matter, has said [u]no evidence exists that the list was created by high-level IRS officials, or political officials in the U.S. Treasury or the White House[/u].[/quote]
That statement is patently false, because evidence is still accumulating - more accurate would have been to say "no evidence of which we are aware". Why is this important? Because TIG made a similar assertion in the following matter, which is now demonstrably false:
[quote]Lois Lerner, the IRS official who set off the controversy, has said that she first learned of the BOLO list in June 2011, and that she ordered the partisan criteria to be removed immediately. The Treasury inspector general backed up that statement.[/quote]
So now it's clear that Ms. Lerner lied. (Or "misspoke" - yes - that sounds much nicer) and the folks at TIG took her word for it. Not surprising - after all both TIG and IRS are part of the same cabinet-level department. The only way Ms. Lerner could have been telling the truth is if she was somehow not on (either directly or by cc-to-our-superiors) the e-mail distrib list in question. And even if not - which frankly beggars belief - we are to believe that an accidental wide-cast of such sensitive information would not have brought to her attention?

Next we get to the "how high does this go?" question:
[quote]Neither Hofacre, nor a second IRS worker in Cincinnati, Gary Muthert, knew who asked for the partisan names to be added to the BOLO list in the first place, the transcripts showed.

Still, Muthert said that when his supervisor in Cincinnati initially asked him to look for "Tea Party" applications, [u]"he told me Washington, D.C. wanted some cases,"[/u] according to his interview with congressional investigators.

Hofacre, however, indicated that a Cincinnati official told her to use the criteria. That official "told me what I needed to put on this particular BOLO list," Hofacre said, referring to the list for Tea Party cases only.

[u]Hofacre lashed out at Washington officials for attributing the extra scrutiny to the staffers in Cincinnati[/u]. "It was a nuclear strike on us," she told congressional investigators.[/quote]
So we know - or at least have good reason to believe, in the form of sworn testimony - it goes much higher than the IRS field office in question. Stay tuned...

For clarification and confirming my understanding (not just being picky):

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342687]For our purpose here I am using "grossly one-sided record of political posting" as the criterion.[/QUOTE]So, "extreme political bias" is "grossly one-sided record of political posting" (as defined below),

whereas non-extreme political bias is ...

non-grossly "one-sided record of political posting", or
not-one-sided "record of political posting", or
simply meeting the definition/criterion described below?

Not trying to be difficult, but I want to know how I could have not triggered your ire about this, since I thought I met the requirements that you have posted in the past. (When we're settled, might you post these new requirements also, where others can refer to them outside this thread?)

[quote]That implies that you have many more than 3 posts which criticize Republicans/conservatives/W-Bush-administration,[/quote]So this is the definition/criterion of "grossly one-sided record of political posting" for our current purposes, right?

I'm not quibbling about 3 vs. 2 or 4, for instance, but just confirming that it's about [the ratio of posts one way vs. the other] being substantially far from 1 ("substantially" being a judgement call, not some specific number).

[quote]It's the countervailing "evidence of open-mindedness/balance/bipartisanship" that I claim is vanishingly scanty. Your task is to prove me wrong.[/quote]Suppose that I produced "evidence of open-mindedness/balance/bipartisanship" without specifically including links to at least three separate posts in my entire past-posting history here in which I criticize the Obama administration about any significant issue of governance in unambiguous terms.

If that evidence were deemed sufficient by reader poll, would that satisfy your requirement?

(Again, not trying to be difficult -- just want to know how I could have not triggered your ire about this.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342758]Meanwhile, I don;t mind posting key new evidence on the IRS "missteps" as it rolls in

< snip >

[/QUOTE]I accept this as the first evidence I've seen that conservative groups were targeted [i]because they were conservative[/i] rather than as a byproduct of nonpartisan criteria.

Nothing I saw previously was evidence that conservative groups were targeted [I]because they were conservative[/I].

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342759]I'm not quibbling about 3 vs. 2 or 4, for instance, but just confirming that it's about [the ratio of posts one way vs. the other] being substantially far from 1 ("substantially" being a judgement call, not some specific number).[/QUOTE]
3 is an admittedly somewhat-arbitrary number - I wanted it to be "more than one" since we all have lapses. :) But because I made the criteria deliberately narrower than they might be - in the sense that they could be "unambiguous criticism of Obama/Democrats/the-political-left - I didn't want to ask for a number which could be construed as "unreasonable" by a reasonable person. I feel using Obama as a proxy makes the search easier - if you prefer, I am happy to substitute something like
[i]
Greater than 10:1 ratio of posts predating my original proposal which criticize - in unambiguous terms - Bush/Republicans/the-political-right to those criticizing Obama/Democrats/the-political-left."
[/i]
You produce as many of the latter as you can find, I then produce more than 10x as many of the former (You first as before, because your burden of proof is much lower). But both steps would now require reader poll-as-to-admissibility, so you see things get more complicated. But hey, if more complicated is what you want, fine. As long as both agree on the specific criteria at the outset.

[QUOTE]Suppose that I produced "evidence of open-mindedness/balance/bipartisanship" without specifically including links to at least three separate posts in my entire past-posting history here in which I criticize the Obama administration about any significant issue of governance in unambiguous terms.

If that evidence were deemed sufficient by reader poll, would that satisfy your requirement?[/QUOTE]
What type of evidence might that be? On a forum like this, history-of-posts is all we have to go on, objectively speaking.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342760]I accept this as the first evidence I've seen that conservative groups were targeted [i]because they were conservative[/i] rather than as a byproduct of nonpartisan criteria.

Nothing I saw previously was evidence that conservative groups were targeted [I]because they were conservative[/I].[/QUOTE]

So our little "partisan challenge" game may be moot, or do you wish to proceed?

[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.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342852] 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,[/QUOTE]Yet you still have not posted a single bit of evidence to support that opinion!

What is the logical train of thought whereby the number of posts I have made that criticize the Obama administration has become an indicator of whether I have "extreme political bias" ... but this is applied to no one else? And is that uncorrelated with the circumstance that I value accurate criticism more than inaccurate criticism, that I value accusations supported by evidence more than accusations that are not supported by evidence, and that I have dared to point out where your criticism is inaccurate and where your accusations are unsupported by evidence?

Say, [I]does the number of your political posts that I have _not_ criticized (because I saw no obvious flaws in them) -- like, the vast majority of them -- have any relevance to this matter?[/I]

Are you requiring that I must have chimed in my "me, too"s in agreement with you on a regular basis in order to prove my non-bias? Such as garo tried to shame me into doing[sup]*[/sup] not long ago?

[quote]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.[/quote]... but not why that standard is a fair one.

[quote]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[/quote]Is it only I who have noticed that you refer to my "extreme political bias" only after I've called attention to inaccuracy in your criticism or lack of evidence in your accusations ... or has anyone else here given that correlation some thought?

There've been, in the past, long periods of my having posted lopsided criticism (in the same direction as recently) but you never made an accusation of "extreme political bias" during those times. So I find your attempted "lopsidedly politically partisan" justification rather odd to bring up now, but not back then.

Oh, wait -- those were times when I didn't so prominently and stubbornly criticize the flaws in your political accusations as I have recently. That's the difference between then and now.

[quote] - and note that I leave it not to me but to the broader readership to weigh any evidence produced.[/quote]That's a cute gimmick, pretending that you're proposing a fair test, after you've pre-loaded the test against me.

[quote]Again, at issue here is not whether I think Cheesehead is open-minded on matters such as the scientific evidence regarding global warming[/quote]... because I haven't recently criticized your postings about that, have I? ...

[quote]- it is strictly regarding his record of nonpartisanship (or lack thereof, IMO) in matters of U.S. national 2-party politics.[/quote]Where was it posted that a nonpartisan balance in postings is required as a condition of participation in this forum?

Have you read my explanation in post #118 above, yet?

[quote]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.[/quote]... and you make it seem oh, so reasonable, don't you -- to distract readers' attention away from the way that your basic premise is unfair to me.

[quote]The fact that Cheesehead himself is seriously considering my proposal tells me it must not be obviously unreasonable.[/quote]Hmmm ... no, I guess you haven't yet read my post #118, have you?

- - -

[sup]*[/sup] Here it is:
[QUOTE=cheesehead;310625]garo,

From what you've said so far, I think what you really want is for me to be a cheering section, posting a "me, too!" after every time you post about torture or extra-judicial killings/murders. You haven't given us any reason why you think my additional postings about these subjects would add value to the discussion. You keep dodging my requests for further explanation, so this cheering-section motive is the best I can come up with that fits what you've posted so far.

Do you think your own posts lack enough oomph on their own, so that you need someone else to chime in to make them more powerful?

Why do you ask only me for this, instead of trying to recruit anyone else?

You don't see me begging other folks to chime in on the subjects about which I post, do you?

- - -

Your suggestion that it's all to get me to "enlighten" myself doesn't add up. I don't see you making a special concentrated push to get anyone else to "enlighten" him/herself. Why only me?

As for "lack of curiosity", I've shown _lots_ of curiosity about _your motive in this matter_. I've tried different ways of persuading you to reveal your motive, but _you keep resisting_.

It's not my lack of curiosity or enlightenment that's going on here; it's your lack of openness about your true motive. Please just tell us what that motive is.[/QUOTE]Now, check out how garo responded to that post of mine. That's right -- go to that thread and read what garo posted after my post #29. (BTW, as you do that, you'll stumble upon some of Ernst's posts, too.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342857]Now, check out how garo responded to that post of mine. That's right -- go to that thread and read what garo posted after my post #29. (BTW, as you do that, you'll stumble upon some of Ernst's posts, too.)[/QUOTE]

Cheesehead...

In your opinion, which is more important:

1. Proving you are correct?

2. Achieving a goal you think is worthwhile?

[QUOTE=chalsall;342856]Grow some balls Cheesehead.[/QUOTE]??

My posts of the past two days aren't enough for you?

[quote]"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" - Monty Python.[/quote]Again, not much signal in that post, so S/N ratio is hard to gauge. Please explain more about your meaning.

(Did you miss Ernst's threat to censor me ... again?)

[QUOTE=chalsall;342858]Cheesehead...

In your opinion, which is more important:

1. Proving you are correct?

2. Achieving a goal you think is worthwhile?[/QUOTE]chalsall,

I respect you too much to take the major chance of misconstruing your tiny hints if I were to reply without asking for clarification. Please explain what you mean.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342861]Please explain what you mean.[/QUOTE]

Very explicitly...

One cannot win every battle others bring to you. Thus, one must choose one's battles very carefully (standard Machiavelli and Sun Tzu).

I hope that makes sense.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342860]My posts of the past two days aren't enough for you?[/QUOTE]

They come across as "help, help"....

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342860](Did you miss Ernst's threat to censor me ... again?)[/QUOTE]

Where would this alleged threat be?

If you mean my "echo chamber" comment in the neighboring "anything BUT" thread - you gravely misconstrue the meaning of the term - I meant simply "show me you have a nonpartisan bone in your body, or I shall leave you to bicker/argue/whine with yourself". Which you have done admirably, BTW. That was no threat to ban you - tut, tut, "my, aren't we the touchy fellow?"

OTOH, should you continue to throw loud tantrums in multiple threads rather than making any kind of positive contribution to the overall informational content of the forum, other supermods may see fit to take action. I leave it to them. Checking in 2 or 3 times a day to catch up on your latest silly antics is way too much fun for me to resort to that.

(post retracted)

[QUOTE](post retracted)[/QUOTE]The NSA still has a copy of it.

:sad:

The NSA still has a lot of my porn downloads to sift through before they get around to cheese's redactions.

Even though [url]http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/[/url] is [URL="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/08/you-have-downloaded-has-closed/"]down now[/URL], but there are new [URL="http://www.mypiracy.net/"]other[/URL] sites that give you the same wake up call.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342761]3 is an admittedly somewhat-arbitrary number - I wanted it to be "more than one" since we all have lapses. :)[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk[/url]

No not a davieddy style link.

[QUOTE]"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."[/QUOTE]

US DOJ Spied Full Monty on AP Reporters
 

Title change proposed:
"US DOJ Spied Full Monty on AP Reporters"

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/18/breaking-full-house-committee-transcripts-shed-new-light-on-genesis-of-irs-targeting/[/url]

[COLOR="White"]Maybe should let dead horses stay beaten down. but I'm a glutton for horse meat sammich's[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=chappy;343779][URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/18/breaking-full-house-committee-transcripts-shed-new-light-on-genesis-of-irs-targeting/[/URL]

[COLOR=White][SPOILER]Maybe should let dead horses stay beaten down. but I'm a glutton for horse meat sammich's[/SPOILER][/COLOR]:deadhorse:[/QUOTE]
You sneaky devil. :devil: Taking after Raman, are you? :ick:

Well, no wonder Issa wanted to stick with selective releases of testimony. I'm glad someone finally ratted him out.