I like to steer people to the Free Press with a promise that they will see both sides of an issue presented; a place where balanced viewpoint is still available. I'm disappointed when I read a piece like this where the distain for the other team is so evident. While I agree with much of the opinion in this piece, and the data seems to check out as accurate, the snark on display will certainly push a fence sitter off the fence, but not to the reasonable side of the arguments. Just sayin'.
I was speaking of arguments in general, but the reasonable position is always the one 'our team' will take (of course, lol).
I just realized that this is not a Free Press article. My bad, and I apologize. Wrong Speak has always been edgy, so this piece fits perfectly into that forum.
Thanks for your reply. Is it your position that there was no fraud or were you just objecting to the fact that the “no fraud” argument was not presented?
Neither. Your argument was persuasive, with facts to support it, and there is no need to argue for the other guy. My thought was that, in an environment where balance is expected (the Free Press for example) I thought I'd see fewer snarky comments than I found here, such as "...with their noses firmly placed where the sun doesn’t shine...". The fire, wit and sarcasm are why I subscribe to Wrong Speak Publishing, I just thought I was responding to a Free Press piece.
Again thanks for your reply. It's refreshing to see sensible, well-written comments. While I do tend to be snarky I also believe in looking at both sides of an issue. In this piece, my intent wasn't to convince anyone that fraud existed, but rather to encourage readers to look at the numbers and make their own decision. Obviously, the snarkiness supports the opinion that fraud did exist, but I think that's fair given that this is an opinion piece.
I like to steer people to the Free Press with a promise that they will see both sides of an issue presented; a place where balanced viewpoint is still available. I'm disappointed when I read a piece like this where the distain for the other team is so evident. While I agree with much of the opinion in this piece, and the data seems to check out as accurate, the snark on display will certainly push a fence sitter off the fence, but not to the reasonable side of the arguments. Just sayin'.
What are the “reasonable sides of the argument”?
I was speaking of arguments in general, but the reasonable position is always the one 'our team' will take (of course, lol).
I just realized that this is not a Free Press article. My bad, and I apologize. Wrong Speak has always been edgy, so this piece fits perfectly into that forum.
Thanks for your reply. Is it your position that there was no fraud or were you just objecting to the fact that the “no fraud” argument was not presented?
Neither. Your argument was persuasive, with facts to support it, and there is no need to argue for the other guy. My thought was that, in an environment where balance is expected (the Free Press for example) I thought I'd see fewer snarky comments than I found here, such as "...with their noses firmly placed where the sun doesn’t shine...". The fire, wit and sarcasm are why I subscribe to Wrong Speak Publishing, I just thought I was responding to a Free Press piece.
Again thanks for your reply. It's refreshing to see sensible, well-written comments. While I do tend to be snarky I also believe in looking at both sides of an issue. In this piece, my intent wasn't to convince anyone that fraud existed, but rather to encourage readers to look at the numbers and make their own decision. Obviously, the snarkiness supports the opinion that fraud did exist, but I think that's fair given that this is an opinion piece.