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

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Democrats are divided...

...about Ken Avidor. One sees through his propaganda, and the rest don't seem to care!

after only TEN MINUTES!--

Responses to Avidor's anti-PRTeabagging at Democratic Underground
A selection:

I guess this is more about who presented the idea. As much as you might hate a politician, it is possible to evaluate something based on the merits of the technology. #12

Apparently you are an anti-PRT blogger so this is not a casual topic for you. For me, I was just offended intellectually by the logic in the video and the reasons to shit-can the whole concept because some politician that you don't like. If anything, I like Bachman [sic] even less by having her name associated with it. #15

You seem to be fighting pretty hard against even research taking place. You have not even made a concrete argument as to what is so bad about it. #17

...you are pretty heavily into telling everybody that it is bad, but why can't you list out the reasons that it is bad? It couldn't be strictly financial, otherwise you would be supporting it if the economy was good. I always feel suspect about people that are so much against something, but have no reasons to explain why they feel that way. It makes me think that you are really just against the politician supporting it and no matter what that politician would suggest, you would be emphatically against it. Trying to argue logically about the pros/cons is just a waste of time. Thinking about it, that sounds like the entire Republican party and we can see how that is bad for the country. #19

You may try to dismiss Mr. Grant because he only made one post, but why don't you take him up on his bet if you are so sure he is being paid. You lose alot of credibiity [sic] here on this note. If you can continue to insinuate that he is being paid, then take him up on his bet or, if I can quote my original post, then S T F U!!!
[Comment: Ken keeps asking about my income because he believes PRT is a vast right wing conspiracy. Conspiracies must have paid minions, and because I am a visible PRT proponent he assumes I must be paid to do it. Which I might be. Or might not.]
So, Avidor, why is it that the other side can at least list facts and make their case. I only know a little bit about the topic, but why is it that peope [sic] like Mr. Grant can list facts to support their side, but the best you can do is say "go read this link by an expert". Aren't you an expert? If you were just the average Joe who had an opinion about the topic, I would say fine. But since you are so involved in it, I would expect you to write alot more than I would even care to read. It reminds me of the many republicans that feel a certain way about (insert topic here) and can ony [sic] support their case by saying that Hannity said it or Rush said it. #27
[Comment: Indeed, Ken does claim to be an expert.]
So, you already knew about the bet that Mr. Grant threw out there. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bring up the topic, he is going to verbally bitch slap you again about the bet. It couldn't be that hard to figure out that if you talk about him being paid, that he will talk about the bet. Even Michele Bachman [sic] could figure that one out. Whenever somebody calls you out on a claim you make and you can't back up your claim, it makes you look bad. That's just the way it is. If you don't want to look bad, don't bring up this topic. #28

What is your basis for saying that these people are being paid? Give me one. If you can't support your claim, then making it is just smearing. I can't tell you to stop doing it, but from my experience I can say that people resort only to smearing when they can't support their case factually. #36

...since you are so much against even debating PRT and making your case, I must conclude that it really does have alot of merit and the folks that are fighting tooth and nail against it are probably supported by industries that would lose money if it became a reality. #39

This thread should be referenced somewhere in the Pro-PRT websites. Maybe it should be referenced in the anti-PRT sites as well as an example of how "NOT TO" make your case... The anti-PRT side really did focus on fear, smearing, easily disprovable claims and could not answer even the simplest question of "What supports your point of view? Make your case".
...Avidor, on the other hand, has put in 3 years in taking the anti-PRT position and behaves as if the Silver Bullet is to scare, smear and make sure the truth is kept hidden. He should realize that that is a red flag to anybody who has not already decided on their position. He was put on the spot in a number of places and could have easily defended himself if he had the facts on his side. The absense of that makes the anti-PRT side look sketchy in my book. #61

Avidor is doing wonders in creating new pro-PRT advocates, simply by being himself. #65

Related: See Ken Avidor get pwned at Daily Kos again and again -- review any PRT thread in his diary

Table (Google Doc): PRT supported by more Democrats than Republicans in 2003-04 Minnesota Senate (the session with Bachmann's bill)

gPRT Where division is concerned, Ken Avidor is the remainder

No comments: