choomer
Well-Known Member
Oh good.
Another of the BCC using Alinsky tactics.
First to distract and accuse me of a delusion they themselves are patently culpable of and second trying to accuse me of being a stormer, when in a list of 200 different WaPo reported fake news sites I posted about, he gravitates to the one that truly reflects his own beliefs.
But if it what he alleges were true, wouldn't you think such a old and prolifically posting member would just post a quote of me saying that? I've seen that (for sigs) he CAN use the search function and knows how to quote.
Stormer WAS in the list published by WaPo which spurred this editorial comment:
Sad, but expected.
Since you put so much credence in WaPo's anonymous sources how can you discount the reporting of other anonymous sources that get retracted because of hurt feelings?
Alinsky's "attack the messenger, not the message" seems to be your only tactic.
Keep at it!
It's really working for you.
Another of the BCC using Alinsky tactics.
First to distract and accuse me of a delusion they themselves are patently culpable of and second trying to accuse me of being a stormer, when in a list of 200 different WaPo reported fake news sites I posted about, he gravitates to the one that truly reflects his own beliefs.
But if it what he alleges were true, wouldn't you think such a old and prolifically posting member would just post a quote of me saying that? I've seen that (for sigs) he CAN use the search function and knows how to quote.
Stormer WAS in the list published by WaPo which spurred this editorial comment:
...which is as close as WaPo goes towards retraction and since PropOrNot won't divulge the identity of its organizers I think that I can comfortably claim them anonymous sources, not that it's anything new for WaPo.Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
Sad, but expected.
Since you put so much credence in WaPo's anonymous sources how can you discount the reporting of other anonymous sources that get retracted because of hurt feelings?
Alinsky's "attack the messenger, not the message" seems to be your only tactic.
Keep at it!
It's really working for you.