Posted by David Keelan on Tuesday, October 17, 2006
I’m disheartened to see so much emphasis being placed on the source of the site and whether it’s negative and not the information contained within it.
It takes time to respond to 134 pages of spin and smear if it even deserves a response. Additionally, it doesn’t seem to matter to Hayduke that:
- Ulman put up the website
- Is trying to hide the fact that he put up the website
- Is trying to convey the appearance the he is above such things
From what I’ve seen, the site in question has sourced the points it makes
I don’t know from this statement whether Hayduke has examined the claims or all 134 pages on the site.
Why am I fixated on Hayduke’s response? Because I respect his opinion. Although we haven’t met I like what he writes and has to say. If he has read the entire site and examined all the claims and comes to the same conclusion then I can say fair enough.
BTW: Yes, it was me who called Ken Ulman a coward and then deleted it. Yes, someone revealed the name of the “plant” at a candidate’s forum. Then I asked if it was the same person who had legal problems and yes, after thinking about it I deleted both her name and my question because it was not fair. Hayduke knows the dirty details and his little voice inside my head made me reconsider so I deleted that too.
I have offered a: “…cogent, well-sourced refutation of the website” or at least some parts of it and will find time later to get to more of it.