[Vision2020] And the Hits Just keep On Coming . . .

[Andreas Schou]

Gary --

Why, one can find the same information in multiple places. Astounding!
One does not have to rely solely on me for one's news!

Well, hell. I may be out of a hobby.

-- ACS

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:29 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> My apologies, it appears that I was incorrect. It would seem that you didn't
> lift you argument from the huffington post, The far more likely source looks
> like your old friends at kos:
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/12/122359/661/796/596201
>
> Coincidently the same date as your post. Weird huh? A quick click at toward
> the end of the article and you've "referenced the primary sources,"
> paraphrase (quite closely) the article for us here on the V and you're
> golden. Of course there is still no indication what the contingency money
> was spent on in any of the years referenced or whether the money in question
> came from that source but hey what's a few minor details when ya got a Veep
> to disparage.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And the Hits Just keep On Coming . . .
>
>
>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it your contention that Dr. Harkins CPA,  Professor Emeritus of the
>>> University of Idaho Collage of Business, Department of Accounting is
>>> unable
>>> to read a small town budget report and has the facts all wrong?
>>
>> No. It is, rather, my contention that he didn't, or did and then
>> thought that no one would actually check. I'm not calling him
>> incompetent; I'm calling him a liar. Again, for anyone that's
>> interested, you can check the '98 cite on page 65. The contingency
>> numbers correspond to the police chief's quotations from the
>> Frontiersman article. As for anything further, I am not going to shout
>> a full and unnecessary bibliography at Dr. Harkins' departing back.
>>
>>> Or, as is somewhat more likely given previous discussions I have had with
>>> you on this forum, did you lift the whole thing in its entirety from the
>>> huffington post and throw that bit about primary sources in an attempt to
>>> lend a semblance of authenticity and credence to your argument?
>>
>> Gee, Gary. If you thought so, you'd think you'd've at least accused me
>> of doing so before. We've had quite a bit of correspondence, ande
>> you've actually never accused me of that, which is sort of amazing
>> given the broad miscellany of personal accusations you've made against
>> me over the years.
>>
>> Again, I'm telling you outright: no, I didn't read 300 pages of
>> financial disclosures from beginning to end. Rather, I found someone
>> else pointing at the cites, I looked them up, confirmed that they were
>> accurate, and sent Jeff directly to the primary source, evading the
>> inevitable argument about the reliability of a Washington Monthly
>> comment thread and the 'those could've been cut-and-pasted from
>> anywhere' argument regarding the snapshots from the PDF. Following
>> bibliographic chains to primary sourcesis a time-honored research
>> technique, and one that saves a tremendous amount of
>> wheel-reinventing.
>>
>> I'm hadn't claimed at any point to have done original research, only
>> that the primary sources supported my argument. Again, you aren't
>> accusing me of lying. You aren't disputing the facts as they stand.
>> You aren't accusing me of cutting-and-pasting language from the
>> article. You're merely making an issue of how I happened to know why
>> Dr. Harkins was wrong.
>>
>> -- ACS
>>
>
>
>