06-02-2022, 01:59 AM
For some reason, I keep getting an error message when I try to reply to the above email, so I am trying this route.
I am traveling right now and on internet only intermittently, using the time to read your sources.
In the meantime, I have these three points:
1. If you can tell the Slate article is "sensationalized propaganda," it should be VERY EASY to pick out examples. NOT HARD. E.g., that's what I took the time to do with your first K.K. youtube post. I saw the errors and exposed them. Kyle said if Barr misrepresented Mueller, Mueller would say so.* I showed that Mueller DID say so. Kyle said reading the MR would not change anything Barr concluded. I showed how, for the rest of the world, it did just that. And I just did something similar on another thread regarding a Hill article. I am doing the critical unpacking MYSELF in each case, based on knowledge of primary documents.
2. So far, it looks like you find out what others say about an article; then your argument is--"there, what he said!" I still cannot tell if you have actually read the slate article, because you say things like this:
A legitimate journalist with integrity would've sought out independent sources to discover, explain, and understand any inconsistencies with CrowdStrike's findings before writing the article. Foer didn't. He only sought outsiders who supported the underlying theme that this was something nefarious from the Trump campaign.
Foer clearly did seek out many "outsiders," showing how he cross-checked claims among different computer scientists and their response to "inconsistencies." I.e., he actually did what you said he should have done. And how have you determined none of these outsiders are "independent"? How do you know that those who "supported the underlying theme" did not do so because the evidence convinced them? And what IS the underlying them according to Foer? Can you use HIS words to explain, rather someone else's? That's the only way I can be sure you know what Foer actually claimed and DID NOT claim.
3. Going back to a primary source for preview is common when reporters deal with "expert" topics, to make sure they got the sources views/statements right. But that is not the "vetting" Foer was expected to do. That's what occurred when he cross checked a number of computer scientists with each other.
*The logic here is similar to your attempt to de-criminalize Trump's obstruction by saying "It has not been prosecuted. So there can't be anything there."
I am traveling right now and on internet only intermittently, using the time to read your sources.
In the meantime, I have these three points:
1. If you can tell the Slate article is "sensationalized propaganda," it should be VERY EASY to pick out examples. NOT HARD. E.g., that's what I took the time to do with your first K.K. youtube post. I saw the errors and exposed them. Kyle said if Barr misrepresented Mueller, Mueller would say so.* I showed that Mueller DID say so. Kyle said reading the MR would not change anything Barr concluded. I showed how, for the rest of the world, it did just that. And I just did something similar on another thread regarding a Hill article. I am doing the critical unpacking MYSELF in each case, based on knowledge of primary documents.
2. So far, it looks like you find out what others say about an article; then your argument is--"there, what he said!" I still cannot tell if you have actually read the slate article, because you say things like this:
A legitimate journalist with integrity would've sought out independent sources to discover, explain, and understand any inconsistencies with CrowdStrike's findings before writing the article. Foer didn't. He only sought outsiders who supported the underlying theme that this was something nefarious from the Trump campaign.
Foer clearly did seek out many "outsiders," showing how he cross-checked claims among different computer scientists and their response to "inconsistencies." I.e., he actually did what you said he should have done. And how have you determined none of these outsiders are "independent"? How do you know that those who "supported the underlying theme" did not do so because the evidence convinced them? And what IS the underlying them according to Foer? Can you use HIS words to explain, rather someone else's? That's the only way I can be sure you know what Foer actually claimed and DID NOT claim.
3. Going back to a primary source for preview is common when reporters deal with "expert" topics, to make sure they got the sources views/statements right. But that is not the "vetting" Foer was expected to do. That's what occurred when he cross checked a number of computer scientists with each other.
*The logic here is similar to your attempt to de-criminalize Trump's obstruction by saying "It has not been prosecuted. So there can't be anything there."
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
