Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
That is a classic ad hominem. If you have evidence to demonstrate that the information being presented is incorrect, you should convey it instead of simply implying it. If you do not have evidence that the information is incorrect, you should argue the information and not who or why the information is being presented.
The article does not claim it "must" be fraud. It states the information presented is a "strong case". There is a clear difference.
I would hardly consider that article to be written by a "crazy".
|
Nonsense and nonsense.
It is more than reasonable to ask who this person is and what their relationship is to the issue.
And the burden of proof is NOT on me, it is on him to prove his allegations, which he does not do. He instead presents numbers and draws his own conclusion that something is fishy.
And if you don't think DU is inhabited by the loony fringe of the Democrats*, then you haven't read enough posts there.
Heck, it embarasses
them sometimes.
*Fully conceded that Dems are not as a rule "loony" and that there are "loony" Repubs as well as Libertarians, etc.