dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to tubbynet

Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?

Still missed my point. What is relevant here is how they are funding, not why.

The why is debatable, the how is not. The fact that you don't understand the difference is pretty it telling.

Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in, nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).

My alleged contradiction is nothing but your inability to read and/or think critically.

From my original post out:

but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by DataRiker:

Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in
right, and most do because they have a vested interest in the outcome of what is being lobbied for.

nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).
i never said google was astroturfing (pot, meet kettle). in fact, while funchords See Profile is not an official spokesman, if google was "astroturfing" his group, i'm pretty sure they'd want to keep it a secret, or at least hide it from a pretty popular site for people interested in the sort of thing that is being "astroturfed".

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by DataRiker:

Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times.
apparently you *assumed* that by having a vested interest in the outcome, i meant astroturfing.

but you are more than welcome to criticize *my* comprehension ability.



q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits
During your original statement you supposed that if somebody is investing money for a cause there must be some return ( you did use the general construct "you")

My response was this:

"The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant"

Which is true. Again a counter example would be the Gates foundation. (there are countless, but that's an easy one)

Now on to the troubling part for you, my next statement:

In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.

I did notice your convenient omission of "In this case"

Something tells me you comprehended my original point just fine but rather then debate on the merits you took the low road.
Expand your moderator at work