It was such an implausible quote that I honestly thought no one would take it seriously. As I've already indicated, I don't think there is a "Mr. Gallup", and it never occurred to me that anyone would believe the head of Gallup would use the term "bitchslapped". Can you show me any poller who's used similar language to publically describe the results of a presidential poll? Certainly you can see that it's plausible I didn't think people would take that line seriously, right?

That said, I did make a mistake. Although I correctly named the post that links to the polling report, I forgot to enter the link parameter. That is now corrected. I'm genuinely sorry for any confusion that may have caused. Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2

, that is a LIE... Gah...

The question to the people polled was "REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU SUPPORT, who do you think won the debate."

Your title says they favor Kerry, and you know it. You tagged the word debate as a half-hearted attempt at honest, but it isn't close. You could have easily as said "Gallup Sez Indpendents Strongly Declare Kerry Debate Winner" or something, but you didn't. You said they FAVOR Kerry.

This isn't something you need told to you, blogic. You know exactly what you are doing, you are just trying to see how much you can get away with.

I don't think JU should allow people to abuse it in this way. At some point you have to say, "If you are going to use this site to lie and spread misleading information, there's the door."

Blogging is a new thing. If people like blogic continue to use it as a type of war-propaganda, then what little respect it enjoys now won't last long. This crap reflects pooly on blogging and poorly on JU.

BakerStreet, I've usually enjoyed reading your posts -- sometimes agreed with your claims, and sometimes disagreed.

I will always advocate your right to express your opinion, even when your opinion is that I shouldn't be able to express mine.

I've enjoyed your posts in the past as well, blogic. That's why this sudden shift is so lurid, I think.

Blogic has set a high watermark with the majority of his posts, perhaps it's the lack of depth and length in this post Bakerstreet is irked by...

"perhaps it's the lack of depth and length in this post Bakerstreet is irked by..."

*boggle* Do you eaven read what you are talking about, anymore? No, it was the fact that the articles in question bore no resemblance to the truth...

Jeez...

So much for trying to be civil.

, I'm sorry if I was snippy, but you were accusing me of making a big deal about falsehood because I was really irked by lack of depth and length. If I was irked by lack of depth I would try and show lack of depth. What bothered me was the "Bush said X", when Bush didn't say X, or "Gallup said X" when Gallup's poll say anything of the kind.

Again, sorry if I am being antsy, but this is a circumstance when someone lied, not made a mistake, not accidently misquoted, LIED. Then, when they tried to tone it down, they, again, LIED. Go read the articles in question Deference.

Blogic, I don't want you to be banned, or want you to leave, or even for there to be any turmoil. When you say things that aren't true, though, you have to expect people to be put off.

I understand, particularly with our past exchanges. It was my opinion that was reflected in that comment. I acknowledge your point, totally valid, I thought that perhaps you too were somewhat let down by Blogic underperforming.

I am. I think it is a symptom of the whole climate, though. What bothered me was that after it was pointed out that it didn't seem to matter to Blogic.

'nuff said, i"m over it. Things should get back to normal after the election, unless whoever loses contests the election for a year ...

I read the comments that people write, and change things when I'm saying something that's clearly not true; unless I think it's clear that I'm joking.

As I've indicated, I thought it was so wildly implausible that "Mr. Gallup" would use the word "bitchslapped" that it was clear I was joking. I tried to make this extra clear by saying I was quoting the apocrypal "Mr. Gallup", so that no one would think "bitchslapped" was my interpretation of some more plausible quote.

I continue to think the Gallup post -- Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2 -- was accurate. 53% of independents thought Kerry won the debate, compared to 37% Bush. The "Prez Debate 2" was separated because this post was one of several on the second presidential debate. There was no ulterior motive there, other than presenting these posts as part of s small series.

Some of my post titles are provocative, but certainly that doesn't disinguish me on JoeUser. Other recent JoeUser post titles: Liberals Kill U.S. Soldiers, The Democrats And Their Voter Fraud Plans and Kerry a Criminal???.

The question, then, is why are readers focusing on me? I can see two reasons: First, precisely because I nearly always link to the evidence backing my assertions, you can go see whether you agree with me or think I'm off my rocker. I believe in transparency.

Second, while I have concerns regarding Bush, I've repeatedly made it clear that I think Republican leaders are no less ethical than Democratic ones, the Right Wing and the Left Wing are more alike than they want to admit, and that Bush supporters are no less moral or intelligent than Bush critics. It's possible that these posts have led readers to hold me to a different standard than some of the other writers here.

This is all enormously complimentary to me. People are taking me more seriously than I take myself. While I'm surprised at the attention being paid to my posts, I appreciate it.

I'm genuinely sorry if my post titles haven't matched the increasing expectations of my readers -- I was honestly unaware of the change in what people look for from me. I will try to reflect your increased attention and interest.

Good to know.

'nuff said, i"m over it. Things should get back to normal after the election, unless whoever loses contests the election for a year

or Four.

Good lord, a recount is only legal when a recount is done in ALL COUNTIES of that state not just a couple of counties.

- GX