Fact-Checking the "PRT Boondoggle" Blog
A project of the PRT NewsCenter

Friday, June 12, 2009

The "Alameda fib" limps on

Editor's note: We continue beta-testing the change to one of the oldest editorial policies of "PRT is a Joke" IS A JOKE. For a limited time, The Name of the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist will be shown -- although special formatting will be used.

Of all the odd things Ken Avidor has done, one of the strangest happened at the Action Alameda blog on an Aug. 8, 2008 when he signed a blog comment "Ken Avidor, Alameda."

"PRT Is a Joke IS A JOKE" has had great fun publicizing this fib here and in other blogs' comment areas, as have other debunkers such as Atren/A.T.E.

Avidor has not seen fit to explain his geographic self-mislocation. Until now.

Avidor finally attempts to address the address issue in the recently concluded Streetsblog comment thread, attached to the brand extension of his Daily Kos diary "Michele Bachmann and the Right-Wing Libertarian Argument Against LRT / For PRT":
Ken Avidor

A.T.E.: "Avidor disciples - many of them are Avidor sock puppets anyways."

Avidor: Not true. I've posted here only under my own name. [Dodging the issue of whether he uses sock puppets elsewhere. -Ed.]

A.T.E.: "Ken Avidor was quickly on the scene, telling some local blogger he was an Alameda resident"

Avidor: I responded to a post on a form that automatically said I was from Alameda. I asked the moderator to correct it. No attempt to pass myself off as a resident.

Here are all the Action Alameda blog posts about the SunCal's PRT proposal.

June 8, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Not only is the sock puppet denial evasive, but the rest of Avidor's explanation doesn't work either.

1. If you follow the link he gives for the list of SunCal posts, the date of his post is the earliest of the bunch. To what was he responding?

Maybe he'll claim he was responding to this post from the same day -- except it was posted at 8:55 pm, and Ken's piece was posted 11:59 am.

2. An examination of the Action Alameda blog reveals two ways to send them comments: an email address, or this form:

Where is the forced Alameda choice?*

As further evidence of Avidor's bogosity, this commenter was able to indicate that he's from Torrance, CA.

3. If he asked the moderator to correct it, why hasn't it been done? The Action Alameda blogmaster had time to correspond with Atren and write more about PRT and Avidor in a follow up piece -- and even notes Ken is in Minnesota.

And Action Alameda does write about other requests for corrections.

It sure looks like Action Alameda believes "Ken Avidor, Alameda" is something not needing correction.

Come clean, Ken. Everyone knows what you did: you sent Action Alameda an op-ed, omitting any mention of Minnesota and your three favoritest Minnesota politicians, and claimed Alameda residency so they would be more likely to run it. Admit it. It would be the first time you corrected something -- who knows, you might like it.

Recently: Ken thinks Reverse Psychology is "weird"

* And here's their FORM code, no hidden City field:

<form action="http://actionalameda.org/actionalamedanewsblog/wp-comments-post.php" method="post" id="commentform">

<p><input type="text" name="author" id="author" value="" size="22" tabindex="1" />
<label for="author"><small>Name </small></label></p>

<p><input type="text" name="email" id="email" value="" size="22" tabindex="2" />
<label for="email"><small>Mail (will not be published) </small></label></p>

<p><input type="text" name="url" id="url" value="" size="22" tabindex="3" />
<label for="url"><small>Website</small></label></p>

<!--<p><small><strong>XHTML:</strong> You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> </small></p>-->

<p><textarea name="comment" id="comment" cols="100%" rows="10" tabindex="4"></textarea></p>

<p><input name="submit" type="submit" id="submit" tabindex="5" value="Submit Comment" />
<input type="hidden" name="comment_post_ID" value="1682" />



No comments: