Re: OT - right-wing smear machine
- From: claudel@xxxxxxxxx (Claude V. Lucas)
- Date: 25 Oct 2007 01:08:03 GMT
In article <13hvqbvlnc60f49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
DGDevin <dgdevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I'm just curious whether you think what you just said above qualifies as a
Hmmmm, interesting question. It isn't based on false statements or on
previously hidden information that I've revealed only to cause Ed
embarrassment, it wasn't done long-distance using others to conceal my
identity as the source, and it isn't designed to frustrate Ed in some
particular endeavor like being elected to office, thus I don't think it
qualifies as a smear in the sense that I understand the word. Ed jumped
into this thread with an insult and then a statement that his own link
showed was false. Pointing out that he was wrong, and has a history of
being wrong in similar circumstances, and speculating on why he sets himself
up to be wrong in that fashion time after time might be snotty and probably
a lot of other things, but it doesn't seem like a "smear" to me.
How about you, do you think it qualifies as a smear in the same sense as
Swiftboating or an author citing anonymous sources claiming Bush had a coke
bust that his family arranged to go away?
E.D. has an automatic self-smearer.