I guess if I'm doing corrections, I should make sure I use precise language. Correcting myself that Dwain Lingenfelter's Google Maps mash-up isn't misleading isn't entirely accurate either. It *is* misleading, just not in the way that I said it was.
It's not misleading in that it contains information about non-existent events as I originally thought. But it *is* misleading in that the map has poor usability and is potentially confusing for users – an issue that could have consequences for the Lingenfelter campaign. At the least, visitors to his campaign web site may click on the wrong spot on the map and think there's no event in their community, just a placeholder push pin (even when there is an event.) At the worst, they may make the same mistake I did and think that there are a lot less events happening than appears to be and think there is something fishy going on.
On another note, Kent has replied to my correction saying I should delete the post. That's not something I believe in and it's not going to happen. I posted what I posted, when I was corrected, I admitted that I made a mistake. But the record of these events should remain for a couple reasons.
I stand by the rest of my criticisms in that post and also think it's important to see the response that my post engendered from him. In all of our back and forth – and there's been a lot as I can't post a comment without getting yet another response from Kent – I have never resorted to personal attacks or questioning his motives.
In my last post, for whatever reason, Kent has stooped to the level of calling me Karl Rove – a pretty extreme attack for what was an honest mistake.
As I said, I still stand by my other criticisms of some of the things Lingenfelter is doing online. I have claimed that, to me, this appears to just be moving “politics as usual” online and I would also say that deleting a post to whitewash something that's happened is also “politics as usual” – and also shows that Kent doesn't understand quite how the internet works. The moment I hit “post” on my blog, the content goes out to Google and dozens of other sites/readers/subscribers/etc. and is impossible to “delete”, even if that's something I was inclined to do.
Kent, since I know you're reading this, here's my challenge. I did a legitimate list giving five reasons I thought Dwain Lingenfelter would make the best leader for the Saskatchewan NDP. Can you do a similar list for Ryan Meili?
Comments 10
Misleading again I see Jason? I never called you Karl Rove. I said you are doing tactics Rove would be proud of but you continue to mislead and lie. Nothing is misleading about the google map but you claim it is and say it comes close to being immoral. Do you admit that you are misleading people when claiming I called you Rove? Do you admit you are misleading people when you claim the google map is misleading when it is not?
When you attempt to make a post attacking another campaign and an individuals morals then I do question your morals when the entire basis for the thread ie. misleading events is a lie. I am not going to apologize for questioning your motives when you attempt to smear the Lingenfelter campaign as immoral. You continue to mislead people in attempting to put words in my mouth by claiming I said you are Karl Rove. Another misleading lie. I said you are doing politics in a manner which would make Rove proud. I think Rove would be proud of an individual who creates an entire post to question the morals of another campaign when the basis of the attack is based on a lie.
I am not misleading or lying. I am stating MY opinions. And when I stated something that was mistaken, I corrected myself. What more do you want? I already said I'm not going to delete the post and I think you probably want it deleted partly because you responded to my mistake by using the exact same type of attack tactics that you accuse me of.
In this latest comment, you go on to say: “Nothing is confusing about the Google map” yet it was YOU who brought to my attention that you have to click in very narrowly defined areas to get the correct information. How is that not confusing???
Frankly, I think you're starting to take all of this way too personally for some unknown reason (well, I have my suspicions why you are but I won't get into that here) and turning to personal attacks and semi-rants to try to make your points. Not cool and not effective – especially when you keep twisting what I say to fit what you want it to say.
Again, on my blog, I am stating my views and opinions on an ongoing leadership race. You are more than welcome to start your own blog and use that as a forum for your own views and opinions rather than using mine as your personal soap box.
No, when you stated I called you Karl Rove that is a lie and misleading. Would you not agree that stating somebody say something when they did no such thing is misleading?
You turned this personal when you attempted to link the google map as being immoral. You made this personal and nasty.
I do not believe anybody in the NDP leadership race is a bad person or immoral.
There are some folk in the Lingenfelter camp who really need to get some perspective. We saw similar over the top ravings on babble very early on in the leadership, where any criticism of Dwain was treated as an underhanded, unfair and dishonest attack.
In my experience, most of these raving “defences” of Link and his campaign are coming from people who are nowhere near the centre, and whose estimation of their own political punditry is a trifle exaggerated.
Dwain and his inner circle understand something that seems to escape Kent: on June 7, the new leader is going to need the support of people who voted for and who actively supported the other three leadership candidates. That's true whether the new leader is Dwain, Ryan, Yens or Deb. Bullshit accusations of Rovian misconduct are, at the very least, unhelpful. I rather suspect Dwain would tell Kent to settle down.
Does Dwain take a bigger share of the flack that floats around?
Of course he does. He's the front-runner and, as the person with the longest record in public life, he has the most baggage. That makes Link the biggest target. Link understands that and his inner circle understand that. If Kent doesn't, then Kent doesn't understand much about politics.
Jason's two comments about Link's campaign have been matter of fact. Only one of them was actually a criticism. (The comment about the number of Columbian contacts on the Link FB page was merely an observation with some consideration of what effect it might have in interpreting the data. Despite Kent's bizarre ravings, there was no criticism stated or implied.)
Dwain is a big boy. He's been through tougher bar fights than this. He certainly doesn't need Kent's counterproductive attempts at protection.
Malcolm, calling a campaign immoral is counterproductive and does nothing to help the future of the party.
My choice of the word “immoral” seems to be the thing that's gotten you so worked up so fine, I'm willing to recant it. Instead, I'll go with “misleading” to define some of Link's online tactics so far.
Have other campaigns used similar
immoralmisleading tactics? Yes. You see it as an absolute – one candidate has 10 unique friends from a variety of countries on his Facebook fan page is no different to you than one candidate having 100 family members from a single country on his Facebook fan page. I see it as a matter of scope – as I said in another reply, if you have more supporters on your Facebook page from overseas than from Saskatchewan, that's probably a good indicator that something's a bit off.I don't know how to define the scale any clearer than that so you understand the difference – I only know that there *is* a difference in what's being done.
Anyhow, I'm moving on. Feel free to comment on my subsequent political blog posts – of which there will be more!
But Malcolm has confirmed my sense that I'm probably arguing with the wind in trying to reason with you. (I posted my list of five reasons Link would be a good leader. I'm still waiting for you list of similar qualities for Ryan.)
So as much as I want to respond to every comment you post, I know that my energies could be better spent elsewhere. Therefore, unless I have a really good reason to reply, I will no longer be doing so.
See you at the convention – you can buy me a beer! 😉
There is nothing misleading when family and friends join a support page. They join to show support for a loved one. Nothing misleading about it. They willingly decide to join and that is there choice as it is a supporter page. If you are gainst individuals from out of province supporting a candidate then it should be the same view across the board. However, supporter pages on facebook are just that for supporters no matter what country. So I am not sure how it is being viewed as misleading given the fact supporter pages are wide open for everybody to see so hard to mislead anybody when the facts are right infront of them.
Saints preserve us.
And Jason's only point was that the number of SASKATCHEWAN supporters was a more reliable statistic than the overall number of supporters attached to the FB page.
Which (notionally) it is.
Do take a deep breath, Kent.
I am not sure who is debating that Malcolm and who needs a deep breath. I simply stated that it is hard to say a campaign is misleading people on their facebook supporter page when the information in regards to who joins is completely out in the open.
I'm still trying to find where Jason (or anyone else) said that non-SK residents signing up for candidates FB pages was deceptive (as in, misleading with some sort of immoral intent).
Certainly it can be misleading – as in a cursory look at the data would mislead the casual observer, whether the FB page operators intended that or not.
Thus saying that something misleads does not (necessarily) imply either intent or moral turpitude.
But you really do need to calm down, Kent. Raving on like this isn't helping your candidate. Indeed, it makes the Lingenfelter campaign appear far more panicky that what most observers think it ought to be.