Friday, April 11, 2008
OK, then, I have ANOTHER theory ...
As a followup to an earlier post, here we have Kitty McVillain allegedly making a point with a direct and straightforward comparison of some figures.
Here, we have commenter "Friend of USA" smugly agreeing with the notion of taking those numbers at face value.
Here, we have commenter "Ted" passing on Paul Wells' analysis on how those numbers were generated very selectively.
And here, we have that same commenter "Friend of USA" suddenly getting all nuancy about the figures and arguing that it's unfair to just take those numbers at face value because of, you know, a bunch of other important stuff.
You're welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Poor Ted. Into the breach, over and over and still, the outcome is never different:
Geez, Ted - you're generally smarter than that. Wells, well he's not.
I think one of the first times he linked here was during the Emerson crossing, when he asked his readers why I was wasn't condemning Harper, as I had done with Paul Martin when Belinda crossed.
Except I hadn't criticized Paul Martin at all.
Facts, unchecked in that case. In this case, it's a complete flyover of the underlying point being made, But others have already pointed that out.
This is why we hate her like we do. She can't own up to a critique made in good faith...instead she flatters the man who does it (the ones who can resist calling her a horrific names) and then goes off on some obfuscation that is demeaning to others.
Weasily, manipulative bitch.
Post a Comment