Adam_Fulford wrote:
Bev Harris and other members of Black Box Voting [A href="vny!://www.blackboxvoting.org/"]www.blackboxvoting.org[/A] are very reputable and honest people.
Witch replies:[/DIV]So you say. However, you saying they are honest is an opinion, not a fact. What crooked politician has ever claimed to be crooked? What used car salesman has ever claimed to be dishonest? What conspiracy theorist has ever cautioned people to be careful how much of his rhetoric to believe?
People who misrepresent speculation as fact, and who hold up unverifiable evidence as "proof" don't strike me as being very honest. Even if they were honest, as such, there's no way to tell. They could be telling the truth as they believe it to be, but yet be completely wrong due to their bias. Their obvious bias and almost religious hatred of the other side makes them unreliable as a source of factual imformation. That's why I, and most reasonable people, perfer top form our opinions from unbiased sources.
Adam_Fulford wrote:[/DIV]They have to be super careful to back up what they assert, when dealing with the vast fascist apparatus trying to hijack America's Democracy, including Diebold, a huge criminal corporation that has gone into legal attack mode several times against Black Box Voting and LOST in courts of law every time.
Witch replies:[/DIV]Balderdash. Conspiracy sites on the web are a dime a dozen. All of them claim to have the "truth". All of them claim that their existence is proof of their veracity because otherwise the "guv'mint" would sue them and shut them down.
The only thing it shows is that the more whacked out you are and the less verifiable your conspiracy theories are the less likely it is that your "enimies" will care what you say on the web.
Adam_Fulford wrote:[/DIV]Diebold was successfully sued by the state of California, using the evidence that whistle blower hero Stephen Heller bravely provided to protect America's democracy. The California Secretary of State at the time, Kevin Shelley, called Diebold's conduct "[A href="vny!://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/08/BAGN68L64F1.DTL"]reprehensible[/A]" and said "[A href="vny!://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/national/01VOTE.html?ex=1398744000&en=322af40499b8657e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND"]their performance, their behavior, is despicable[/A]," and that "if that's the kind of deceitful behavior they're going to engage in, they can't do business in California."
Witch replies:[/DIV]But that's not exactly what the unbiased reports say... is it? In essence you have taken stories, added your own speculation and opinion to what those stories mean, and are now trying to pass off those speculations and opinions as facts and proof. That doesn't make you very reliable as a source of information. Since you get your information from peopl who are likely to be doing the same thing, it makes it even less likely. Add to that your use of religious rhetoric phraseeology like "whistle blower hero", "vast fascist apparatus", "hijack America's Democracy", "huge criminal corporation", etc (not to mention the obvious overuse of bolding, underlining, ancd color, kind of like an email hoax) and it's obvious that you are more likely to be dealing in fallacy of appeal to emotion than to be giving us reliable information.
Unbiased and trustworthy sources don't have to resort to cliche's and tugging at our heartstrings to get us to believe them.
Once again, just so you can't try to shut me up by the use of ad hominem, I'm not defending Diebold in any way. I'm simply pointing out how unreasonable and illogical it is to come to a conclusion about one biased and untrustworthy side based solely on the empty rhetoric of the other biased and untrustworthy side.[/DIV]
