Christspeak, Rx

Good work, Chip. It's about time someone held them accountable in this area.
 

This is sorta skewed data considering you don't have any blogging during the Clinton years. I'd say regardless of the year, there's always incumbent haters. Period.

So your justification is slightly mishandled since the data isn't interpreted correctly.

And I'm all for not voting in Al Gore and and the rest. Ick. I didn't like Clinton then, and I still don't like him.
 

Oh, please. The only thing that's clear is your lack of understanding of internet searches. You made a claim a few posts ago that some local bloggers you called out by name had passed along accusations of Bush administration thuggery from the likes of David Corn and Michael Isikoff.

You were asked to provide examples. You didn't. (Couldn't?). Instead, you offer up this meaningless Google search. If there were any point to your Google search it would have the same significance as a Google search of:

Chip is gay christspeakrx.blogspot.com
Chip Atkinson murderer
Clinton is God christspeakrx
 

Roch- you know how I feel about your work- Ed Cone did provide many links from the NYT and others about the Plame case that implied or even charged that Rove or someone outed Plame. Many of you have written about Bush lying -when he did not. Many of you have the habit of linking to stories only when they are negative about Bush, but fail to acknowlege or link to the same stories when Bush or his people are exonerated. Corn was just a prominant example.

I know just a little about searching, but my google post does provide lots of examples of this. Note that the 5-10 conservative bloggers have not been nearly as disrespectful.

I do think Ed has a point, he mainly links to interesting stories, but I am dissapointed when he leaves out things like the latest on Plame or even the Niger/Uranium connection.

Though some of you piss me off in the heat of the moment- you, Ed, Sue, Joe K- are gracious and respectful enough to argue it out well in the comments sections.
 

Search engine counts don't mean jack diddly since its syntax oriented and doesn't implement natural language processing.

Yes, that's some big computer science words, but basically it means that it doesn't take into account the context it's written in, it just looks for the word itself.

If you're going to prove your point, I suggest you use absolute phrases. It still doesn't take into account like PotatoStew said: local blogosphere is very much left leaning. Percentages of actual blog posts on "A doing B" where A is politician and B is something bad. In all actuality, this research wouldn't be bad at all to show what you want it to show, but this would either be a college senior keystone project, or thesis. That's how much data you would have to wade through to actually prove what you wanted to prove with this minute number of searches.
 

PS-The google search sadly makes my point without using statistics. If you follow the links you will see 2 things- bloggers like Ed rarely miss linking stories and opinion pieces that reflect negatively on Bush AND rarely link to stories that either exonerate him or soeak well of him.

The second are the bloggers like me- opiners. The liberal one's like Sue and Anonymoses, Jay and others have been pretty extreme when they talk about Bush.

I really don't understand why it is neccessary for me to provide direct links. You've read them. It would have been far more ugly had I done so.
 

You assume people read the links. What's it called in law? Oh yeah. Proof of burden. You don't link, you have nothing to backup what you say.

This is the same thing that I tell the Chairman time and again, and he keeps on at it. Ah well.

Read my comment on Sue's. Your make the play as if conservatives don't go bashing liberal politicians, but from what I've read, it's just flipped circumstances. Your methodologies don't prove your point. In fact, the fact that Roch proves the point with an extreme search, proves that your data-mining is skewed.

You're taking stuff out of context to make it fit to your needs. That's the issue here. I'm not saying the left doesn't either, but if you want to establish yourself as a credible source, then do it credibly, not shoddily. So far, there's only been a few conservatives that even live up to that. One imho is Guarino.

It's been said many times by PS and myself, but I'll repeat it again: If you want to apply a standard to liberals, be sure that you can apply the same to conservatives. Since it seems to have back-fired here.
 

Remind me that if I ever go far in the world, that I hire PS as my PR guy. He seems to be able to speak my mind in such a way that it doesn't seem crass. lol.

We should hire PS as the spokesperson. haha. FecundStench will be the guy that goes do the dirty work when people aren't behaving. The GSO Blogger Mafia. hahaha.
 

PS- One more point- there are bloggers who I think are petty and offensive- or their arguments are so weak they are hardly worth noting. (I am sure some feel I fit in that category). People like you, DM, Ed, Sue, Beth,Lex, Hogg -just to name a few- are on a different plane. You deserve more scrutiny.

And here is where Ed and Lex were right about my post- Ed will often link to a contraversial article, but it is the comments that follow that really get out of hand by a few.
 

So what you're saying is that you're subject to different rules because??

I see double standards here.
 

I am sorry- you've lost me. I have been writing while working- not a good thing.

What do you mean?
 

You say something about "more scrutiny". Yet when you're given the same scrutiny, you say you don't need to link, or back up your stories because and I quote:

"I really don't understand why it is neccessary for me to provide direct links. You've read them. It would have been far more ugly had I done so."

If I'm not mistaken, everyone is under the same standard. I give Sue hell just as I do you when she doesn't back up what she says. I just happen to do it on IM since I have her on it. Same with everyone else. You nitpick at liberal bloggers, but I don't ever see you nitpick at (for example) the Chairman, who likewise doesn't usually back up his side. Lately he's been better at it.

Thus, double standards. If you expect of us (whatever target crowd that you're pinpointing these days), then you're also subject under same rules. Like I said in another one of your posts...

You're being passive aggressive.
 

I see what you mean. I see these recent posts as having fun- or even taunting those who were so confident Bush was wrong. I could have just chalenged the liberals (as Marcus and Bubba have) to admit they were wrong, but I chose to be more creative. I am always in a pickle in these arguments because I truly don't want enemies and I don't like humiliating people.

I think I can back up the post with everyone mentioned in it except Lex. Ed has been selective in linking stories, but he rarely opines or is disrespectful, (he just said something bad about O'Reilly).