Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Pants on Fire for Politifact





Every once in a while there is a Politifact whose little emoticon (true, mostly true, pants on fire, etc.) is so gobsmackingly wrong that it leaves you speechless. Here’s the latest.
The statement to be checked is an observation by gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke that Wisconsin’s school choice program “has no research that shows its going to improve student learning.” Writing for Politifact, Tim Kertscher rates that the statement “mostly true.”
He’s got it completely wrong. In fact, the only evidence that exists on whether the voucher program improves student learning says that it does.

In other words, the cute little emoticon (an obfuscatory bit of "entertainment" fluff which I desperately wish the paper would get rid of) is pretty much backward.
Here’s half the mistake. Because the average of all MPS scores (as reported by the Department of Public Instruction and essentially republished by the Public Policy Forum) is higher than the average of all voucher students, Politifact concludes that this “gives a clear edge to public school students over voucher students.”
 
No it doesn’t. Not even close.
 
Any researcher will tell you that in assessing student achievement as a result of some program or instructional strategy, one must control for the socioeconomic status and other relevant characteristics of the students being compared. In other words, it is essential to compare like to like; apples to apples, if you will.
 
Researchers also will tell you that, in assessing whether student learning has“improved,” some type of longitudinal study is required, i.e., you must determine whether the achievement of particular students who have been exposed to the innovation under study approved over a period of time. A snapshot of test scores doesn’t do that. Even a series of annual snapshots of large groups of students doesn’t do that because we can’t be sure that the groups we are comparing consist of the same students from year to year.
 
As Paul Peterson, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard, explains, simply reporting the “average math and reading scores of all students” “often [says] less about the quality of instruction at the school than about the students’ family backgrounds.” He also calls for a “growth-based measuring stick.”
 
The DPI and PPF reports don’t do either of these things. They compare all (or almost all) MPS students to voucher students who, until quite recently, were all low income (some working class families are now eligible) and likely to be children whose parent were dissatisfied with their performance in public school.  Even if the percentage of disadvantaged and minority students are similar for both groups as a whole, one has to control for relevant factors and crunch the numbers to determine whether one group has "outperformed" the other.

Neither report attempts to measure whether the improvement of students who move to a choice school compared to comparable children who remain in a public school.  (In fact, at least for PPF, there would be no way to do so with the data available to them.)

We could go on.  It is nonsense, for example, to compare the test scores of public and voucher students in Racine in 2014 because the choice program had only just begun in Racine and the voucher students had been in their new schools for only a few weeks. Some folks argue, moreover, that DPI treats students who have opted out of tests in  a way that disfavors voucher schools. There are other issues as well.

I would add that it is meaningless to treat voucher schools as a group since they are not subject to common control and differ dramatically from one another. If, in fact, well-run choice schools improve student performance then it would also be wrong to say that there is “no evidence” the program works. In fact, a quick look at the 2013 PPF report reveals that a majority of choice schools appear to have matched or exceeded the MPS average for at least one subject during the years in question and that a substantial majority of Lutheran or Catholic schools did so. The 2014 results, while not quite as clear, are comparable. Perhaps certain types of choice schools do improve student learning.

So the numbers that Politifact says give public school students a “clear edge” do no such thing.
There are, as far as I know, four studies that attempt to do what DPI and PPF do not. One very small study in the early years of the voucher program – when there was a lottery to participate in Milwaukee – showed that students who got into choice schools did better than those who lost the lottery. Two more recent studies, which Politifact cites but then ignores, shows that the presence of school choice is associated with improvement of test scores in MPS. That was an early rationale for school choice; it was hoped that competitive pressure would cause public schools to improve.

And then there’s the University of Arkansas School Choice Demonstration Project study – the only real study of whether the choice program“improved student learning.” The SCDP study found that Choice students were significantly more likely to graduate and go on to college. The study found that voucher students showed a greater increase in reading scores than MPS students. (That this happened in the last year of the study and the first year in which voucher schools had to, like MPS, publicize their scores doesn’t change that.) There were some other advantages for voucher students but there were not statistically significant, i.e., the researchers could not say that they were not a product of chance.

You can dismiss the statistically significant improvements as “too small” although they are at least as robust as the evidence for a variety of educational nostrums that are commonly touted. And these gains are accomplished at a bit over half the cost of a public school education. You can quibble over what caused the measured improvements. But the fact remains that they are “evidence”of improvement that Mary Burke falsely said does not exist.

How Burke’s statement can possibly be called “mostly true”is beyond me. The Politifact author regards the evidence for improvement as "thin." I'm not sure that statistically significant findings of improvement in the only properly designed study that exists can be so readily dismissed. But let's grant him this . Concerns about the extent of improvements or what really caused it are worth discussing.

But she said there was no evidence. That is false. It cannot be mostly true. This Politifact was not fact checking. It was an imposition of opinion.


Cross posted at Purple Wisconsin

63 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yawn

Bryan White said...

Anonymous is right to a point.

PolitiFact regularly displays a startling degree of ineptitude in its fact checks. Its failures are so common that a yawn qualifies as an apt response to news of the latest failure.

Sadly, many don't realize the lack of quality PolitiFact brings to its fact checking. Factcheck.org and Glenn Kessler both have noticeable leans to the left, but both are also head and shoulders above PolitiFact. PolitiFact is closer to Media Matters territory.

It would be unfair, however, for me not to mention the fact that research at PolitiFact Bias indicates PolitiFact Wisconsin may have a measurable bias against Wisconsin Democrats.

Good work, Mr. Esenberg. It's wrong to leave PolitiFact's disinformation unchallenged. You're doing your part.

Anonymous said...

“PolitiFact is closer to Media Matters territory.”

Debatable. Regardless, using YOUR logic, therefore, can we expect you to level the same charges against RightWisconsin when they break down the positions made by their ideological opponents?


“Good work, Mr. Esenberg. It's wrong to leave PolitiFact's disinformation unchallenged. You're doing your part.”

Sir, he is doing his part being partisan. Not that there is anything wrong with that...

Bryan White said...

"using YOUR logic, therefore, can we expect you to level the same charges against RightWisconsin when they break down the positions made by their ideological opponents?"

Yes. As soon as RightWisconsin starts presenting itself as "nonpartisan" like PolitiFact presents itself.

It would likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to PolitiFact. Plus PolitiFact occupies a much more central stage (in terms of popularity) than RW.

And if you want to debate it, you can visit PolitiFactBias.com.

Anonymous said...

"presenting itself as "nonpartisan" like PolitiFact presents itself."

First, it analyzes roughly the same number Republican and Democratic statements. Second, BOTH conservatives and liberals have claimed that it is biased for the other side. Third, you have to do more than simply make the claim PF is DECIDEDLY one-sided.


"It would likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin..."

Ok, you made the claim, offer evidence.

Anonymous said...

If 75% of the "new" students in the voucher system were already attending the private school the taxpayers are now supporting, it would be hard to argue these students cannot yet be used to evaluate and compare. If any of the choice schools send students back to the public schools because they claim insufficient resources to deal with handicapping challenges, then of course they are at an advantage.

Bryan White said...

"it analyzes roughly the same number Republican and Democratic statements"

Ever think about why PolitiFact does that? Hint: It's not because of random selection.

"BOTH conservatives and liberals have claimed that it is biased for the other side"

Therefore the truth is somewhere in the middle? That's fallacious thinking. Come up with a better argument.

"you have to do more than simply make the claim PF is DECIDEDLY one-sided"

If I don't do more than that do we just decide PF is neutral? I've done research and sifted through a ton of PolitiFact stories. There's a good case against PolitiFact's neutrality. Visit politifactbias.com and poke around some.

"Ok, you made the claim, offer evidence."

PolitiFactbias.com

John Mitchell said...

"Ever think about why PolitiFact does that? Hint: It's not because of random selection."

You are making a value judgement regarding whether Republicans are "hit harder" by Politifact's analysis of their statements compared to Democrats. Perhaps R's statements are indeed more noteworthy in their, shall we say, stretching the truth, just as it is conceivable that D's statements are equally egregious.


"Therefore the truth is somewhere in the middle? That's fallacious thinking. Come up with a better argument."

Classic strawman. Never made nor implied YOUR statement. The point still remains--each ideology has expressed dissatisfaction regarding Politifact's analysis on specific issues.


"Ok, you made the claim, offer evidence."

Sir, directing me to a website to an inquiry regarding RightWisconsin is evading the question.
I will ask again--How would it likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to Politifact?


At least you admit partisanship. So, your investigations into Politifact's work may not be objective after all...Confirmation and selection bias on your part???

Bryan White said...

John Mitchell:

"You are making a value judgement regarding whether Republicans are "hit harder" by Politifact's analysis of their statements compared to Democrats."

No, not in the sentence you're responding to, I'm not. Have you ever thought about why PF tries to pick an even number of Republican and Democrat statements?

"Classic strawman. Never made nor implied YOUR statement."

What do you want us to take away from the PF gets criticized by both sides line? Does it have a point to it other than the one I suggested might be your point (didn't say it was, just asked a question, you'll note). If you don't have a point then you need a better argument. If you have a point other than the one I suggested then I'd like to know what it is. So PF gets criticized from both sides. So what?

"Sir, directing me to a website to an inquiry regarding RightWisconsin is evading the question."

In a sense it's evading the question. In another it's not. The question is answered (often by yours truly) at the website. It's a courtesy to our host, Mr. Esenberg, to move our disagreement off his domain.

"Confirmation and selection bias on your part???"

You should just assume it regardless of the evidence. Or something.

John Mitchell said...

"What do you want us to take away from the PF gets criticized by both sides line?"

Recognizing that PF is not necessarily as biased toward one side as you claim.


"Have you ever thought about why PF tries to pick an even number of Republican and Democrat statements?"

Why don't you just tell us?


"Sir, directing me to a website to an inquiry regarding RightWisconsin is evading the question."

No, no, no. Just like when you make PF accountable for what they say, I am holding you to that same standard. I will ask again, since YOU made this statement HERE--How would it likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to Politifact?


"You should just assume it regardless of the evidence. Or something."

Including the positions you take regarding PF's alleged malfeasance?

Bryan White said...

John Mitchell again:

"Recognizing that PF is not necessarily as biased toward one side as you claim."

How does PF gets criticism from right and left do that without the inference that the truth is somewhere in the middle, eh? By magic?

"Why don't you just tell us?"

Me telling you gives me no measure of how much thinking I can expect from you. If you reach conclusions on your own without me telling you they're more likely to stick. You want me to tell you? It's not a trick question or anything.

"How would it likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to Politifact?"

lol--oh, so you were going for the distraction angle. Cute. I was using hyperbole (I don't read RightWisconsin often). I'm very familiar with PF, so I know PF's unreliability, which is way worse than people think. It's a statement designed to get your attention regarding the lack of quality at PF. If you use the statement to try to expsnd the discussion to RW it's a fairly plain effort to distract from the issue.

"Including the positions you take regarding PF's alleged malfeasance?"

You do realize you're asking a question based a facetious remark, yes?

I've put tons of evidence against PF on the Web. You're invited to stop by politifactbias.com and read some of it. Or you can stamp your feet and insist that I reproduce it here in a discussion thread hosted by Rick Esenberg.

So I guess you have a choice to make.

John Mitchell said...

"If you reach conclusions on your own without me telling you they're more likely to stick."

No, I truly want to know what YOU think on his matter--"Why does PF try to pick an even number of Republican and Democrat statements?"


"lol--oh, so you were going for the distraction angle."

YOU made this claim without any reference to it being made as hyperbole--"It would likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to PolitiFact."

The only one taking any angle is you. YOU opened the door to include RW in the discussion.


"I don't read RightWisconsin often".

Yet, YOU had the audacity to take the position that RightWisconsin, compared to PF, is less inept.
How? Why?

All I am simply doing is holding you to your OWN standard when vetting PF's statements. Your credibility is at stake, given your position, so you can defend or retract your claim. Indeed, you have a choice...

Bryan White said...

John Mitchell, after evading the issue of PF gets criticism from the right and the left, moves on to his preferred distractions:

**No, I truly want to know what YOU think on his matter--"Why does PF try to pick an even number of Republican and Democrat statements?"**

"No," what?

PF tries to pick an even number of R and D statements in order to appear non-partisan. 'Cause it's a very complicated answer. One you apparently couldn't come up with on your own.

**The only one taking any angle is you. YOU opened the door to include RW in the discussion**

Yeah, hold onto that for all it's worth. You need a lifeline.

**YOU had the audacity to take the position that RightWisconsin, compared to PF, is less inept.**

Asked and answered. Is it that you do not understand the concept of hyperbole?

**All I am simply doing is holding you to your OWN standard when vetting PF's statements**

So you're saying you've reviewed my work in vetting PolitiFact? Else how do you know of my standards?

**Your credibility is at stake, given your position, so you can defend or retract your claim. Indeed, you have a choice..**

My credibility isn't at stake for anyone who both understands hyperbole and doesn't have a motivation to dodge the issue of PolitiFact's credibility.

I'll leave you with a simple question: Have you reviewed the standards I use to vet PolitiFact? Yes or no.

John Mitchell said...

“PF tries to pick an even number of R and D statements in order to appear non-partisan.”

Haven’t you heard Yoda’s immortal words? Do or do not do. There is no try. PF does not “try”, they “do”. And as I correctly stated earlier, conservatives and liberals have taken PF to task for their impartiality and their reasoning.


But let us get back to the heart of the matter, rather than you throwing up your hands in the air and exclaiming “preferred distractions” to my own inquiry regarding your vetting process. It is delicious irony--you are more than willing to investigate PF’s claims according to strict accountability standards, but when one of your own claims is called into question, i.e. directly challenged, you skirt your responsibility to employ that same criteria by merely hand-waving it through rhetoric. If PF is persistently “misleading”, what are you in this particular case?


“Yeah, hold onto that for all it's worth. You need a lifeline.”



You are absolutely drowning in your own creation.


“Asked and answered. Is it that you do not understand the concept of hyperbole?”



Only until I repeatedly questioned your claim regarding RW did you offer that caveat. And how "cute" for you to throw in that “Well, I don’t read RW often”. If true, then how can you even compare RW with PF in the first place? You were hoping no one called you on it. Someone did, and now you are decidedly backtracking. If PF was engaging in this same behavior, you would be, like I am right now, jumping all over them for their evasiveness.


"So you're saying you've reviewed my work in vetting PolitiFact? Else how do you know of my standards?”



You clearly are not holding yourself to those principles from your own website in this case when you dodge my inquiry.


So, are you going to defend or retract your claim? Again, your choice.

Bryan White said...

John Mitchell's still trying:

**PF does not “try”, they “do”.**

PolitiFact says it tries. Are you calling PolitiFact a liar?

**If PF is persistently “misleading”, what are you in this particular case?**

The question is based on the premise that I'm not allowing myself to be judged by the same measure by which I judge PolitiFact. But you won't answer whether you know the standards I'm using. If you don't know what standards I'm using then you have no basis for judgment.

Let's try this simple question again: "Have you reviewed the standards I use to vet PolitiFact? Yes or no."

"You are absolutely drowning in your own creation."

Looks like projection. Have you identified any particular criterion I apply to PolitiFact and not to myself? If not, please give it a try. Of course, to know what criteria I apply to PolitiFact you'll probably have to, you know, read how I criticize PolitiFact. And if you do that, why not answer yes when I ask if you've reviewed the standards by which I judge PolitiFact?

"If PF was engaging in this same behavior, you would be, like I am right now, jumping all over them for their evasiveness."

Really? Based on what evidence would I be doing that? Be specific.


"You clearly are not holding yourself to those principles from your own website in this case when you dodge my inquiry."

Clearly what principles from my own website? Quote me. Or paraphrase me. Any evidence will be appreciated.

John Mitchell said...

"Clearly what principles from my own website?"

Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice--Me telling you gives me no measure of how much thinking I can expect from you. If you reach conclusions on your own without me telling you they're more likely to stick.


Let us get back to the heart of the matter. Are you going to defend or retract your claim, rather than evade and dodge and ultimately back yourself into a corner?

Again, your choice.

Bryan White said...

"Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice--Me telling you gives me no measure of how much thinking I can expect from you"

lol
You're arguing that I'm acting inconsistently and at the same time want me to figure out the specifics of your argument?

You've beclowned yourself.

"Let us get back to the heart of the matter. Are you going to defend or retract your claim, rather than evade and dodge and ultimately back yourself into a corner?"

Describe in specifics the corner in which I find myself, otherwise I have no reason to view your challenge as anything other than a bifurcation fallacy.

Another refusal on your part will render your post deliciously ironic.

John Mitchell said...

Are you going to defend or retract your claim, rather than evade and dodge and ultimately back yourself into a corner?

Again, your choice.

Bryan White said...

Irony. Yum.

John Mitchell said...

Are you going to defend or retract your claim, rather than evade and dodge and ultimately back yourself into a corner?

The claim you made, the one that you put yourself into the proverbial intellectual corner, in case you have forgotten, is: "It would likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to PolitiFact."

We both clearly understand the standards you use to vet statements.

Again, your choice to demonstrate the specifics of your argument that supports your claim.

Bryan White said...

John Mitchell's scratched the record:

"Are you going to defend or retract your claim, rather than evade and dodge and ultimately back yourself into a corner?"

Are you determined to add argumentum ad nauseam right next to bifurcation on the list of fallacies you've committed?

You have a talent for avoiding specifics in your argumentation.

The claim you made, the one that you put yourself into the proverbial intellectual corner, in case you have forgotten, is: "It would likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to PolitiFact."

You've never provided any type of specific argument as to why that claim puts me in any type of corner. You say I'm not applying a standard to myself that I apply to PolitiFact. I ask you which standard and you ask me to figure it out. Making me responsible for the content of your argument is no way to argue, unless you simply love fallaciously shifting the burden of proof. You ... don't love fallaciously shifting the burden of proof, do you?

"We both clearly understand the standards you use to vet statements."

What evidence do I have that you understand the standards I use to vet statements? I ask you for specifics and you clam up.

"Again, your choice to demonstrate the specifics of your argument that supports your claim."

I continue to refer you to politifactbias.com, where I address in many ways very specific problems with PolitiFact that would embarrass an average blogger if they made similar mistakes. In the tradition of the evader, you wish to focus on a specific comparison to RightWisconsin, trying to make that the main point. In effect, you're trying to use my unwillingness to go along with your distraction (red herring fallacy) into a means of discrediting me (ad hominem fallacy).

How much farther will you go in embarrassing yourself?

John Mitchell said...

Sir, YOU made the claim, not me. I called you to respond to that claim--"It would likely be harder to find outright ineptitude at RightWisconsin compared to PolitFact"--similar to what you do with PF. The burden is now upon YOU to support it with evidence or to retract. WE are both fully cognizant of the standards YOU employ to vet statements. No fallacies are involved.


"Making me responsible for the content of your argument is no way to argue, unless you simply love fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Again, YOU made the claim, YOU made that specific comparison. I am NOT responsible for generating YOUR argument to support that claim. The burden of proof is on YOU, since I called you on that claim. This process is exactly what you do with PF. You are given the opportunity to demonstrate clearly how you vet claims (in this particular case, your own claim) using well-established standards that WE both understand.

It's not that hard...

Bryan White said...

Wading through the general non-responsiveness we finally get to this from John Mitchell:

"The burden of proof is on YOU, since I called you on that claim."

How can the burden of proof be on me for that claim if I don't care whether or not you believe it (or anyone else, for that matter)? I told you the point. You've chosen to repeatedly ignore what I said.

"This process is exactly what you do with PF."

lol
I don't suppose you can offer a specific description of the alleged similarity? Because it's my burden or proof and not yours or something?

"You are given the opportunity to demonstrate clearly how you vet claims (in this particular case, your own claim) using well-established standards that WE both understand."

lol
Again, you've offered me not a speck of evidence that you understand my vetting standards. You evade all specifics so far. I guess because you think it's fun or something. And you don't realize how ridiculous you look to people who read it.

Spare Rick's site your nonsense. You can waste your time just as well posting your bunkum to PolitiFact Bias. And you may accidentally learn something about vetting standards. ;-)

Bottom line: If you understood vetting standards then you wouldn't badger me to prove (or retract) a hyperbolic statement. And you'd know that if you had familiarized yourself with the standards I use.

John Mitchell said...

You know how cats watch intently when something goes 'round and 'round and 'round until they get dizzy? Describes your evasion to a "T".

Only until you were called out did you decide to insist that your claim was "hyperbolic". Because "you don't read RW often".

You even offered me advice--Me telling you gives me no measure of how much thinking I can expect from you. If you reach conclusions on your own without me telling you they're more likely to stick--that you didn't even heed yourself.

So spare Rick's site your outright refusal to vet your own claims according to standards we BOTH (hint--that should tell you exactly what you need to know!)) are familiar with when outed. You may learn something about yourself in the process. The more you know...

John Mitchell said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

And...the deranged anony that infiltrated Dad29's site strikes again. Considering I have NOT used that language at all on this thread, it's not surprising that this "person" would interfere. Any and all similar posts like 6:03 p.m. are attributed to my stalker.

John Mitchell said...

Looks like my stalker copy and pasted my 8:05 p.m. message repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

Looks like you can't operate the internet, John.

Bryan White said...

John Michell plays his note again:

**Only until you were called out did you decide to insist that your claim was "hyperbolic".**

It's certainly incriminating when somebody does not specifically say hyperbole is hyperbole when first using hyperbole. Or something.

Obviously explaining that a statement is hyperbole is the type of thing one only has to do when somebody fails to see it's hyperbole. And that's your gotcha. Pfeh.

**You even offered me advice--Me telling you gives me no measure of how much thinking I can expect from you. If you reach conclusions on your own without me telling you they're more likely to stick--that you didn't even heed yourself.**

You tried to apply that principle in an extraordinarily silly way. I asked you a question about whether you had thought about one of PolitiFact's practices. You demanded to know my view of it instead of offering your own thoughts. Later, you claimed that I had acted inconsistently, which would constitute an argument againstt my position, and you demanded that I figure out your argument using that same principle. The cases are not similar. A person making an argument is responsible for the content of his own argument, as you later averred. You, sir, argue inconsistently. That is not a strength.

**your outright refusal to vet your own claims**

There is no outright refusal to vet my own claims. I've consistently offered to support in terms of specifics my claims concerning PolitiFact aside from the probabilistic and hyperbolic statement comparing it to RW. You refuse to accept it's hyperbole to the point of thinking can use as a "gotcha" the fact that I explained it was hyperbole after you failed to understand it as hyperbole.

As arguments go, that has to be near the bottom of the barrel.

You'd love to keep avoiding evidence about PolitiFact itself, right? Such as the fact that PolitiFact routinely uses the wrong formula to calculate percentage error, and PF's pattern tends to help Democrats and harm Republicans?

Does RW do that?

Anonymous said...

Pay no mind to John Mitchell. He's hijacked a number of screen names and trolled various sites.

He's just not worth responding to.

John Mitchell said...

"It's certainly incriminating when somebody does not specifically say hyperbole is hyperbole when first using hyperbole."

Glad you are able to admit your error in judgement.

Now, back to the subject at hand. No "gotcha moments", no "failures to understand" anything, no "avoiding evidence about PF", etc. Those are distractions on YOUR part.

So, are you going to defend or retract your claim, rather than evade and dodge and ultimately back yourself into a corner?

John Mitchell said...

And for the record, Bryan White, you are a gutless cocksucking puke.

John Mitchell said...

Looks like yet again my admirer is hi-jacking the thread.

Anonymous said...

Fucking crybaby.

You can leave, John. Nobody will miss you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:33 p.m. is the same person who caused Dad29 to moderate comments.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:52 p.m. is the same child molesting person who has bragged about taking down Dad29's site.

John Mitchell said...

Professor, check Anonymous 10:57 p.m. IP address compared to the actual John Mitchell (me) and ban Anony 10:57 p.m. for crimes against human decency. It's your moral imperative.

Anonymous said...

The only one ruining this thread, is you "John Mitchell," particularly with your personal attacks on Bryan White.

Perhaps the Professor should ban you, and restore civility to this blog.

John Mitchell said...

All the professor has to do is cross reference the civil posts and the deranged anony/impersonator and (presto), you're gone.

Anonymous said...

Fat luck of that happening, "John."

But you may have bought yourself a civil suit.

John Mitchell said...

Fat luck of that happening, "anony."

And you just bought yourself a civil suit. Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Spoken like a true troglodyte.

John Mitchell said...

Deranged anony who poses as me, you really need to seek help.

tozca sudirman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.