Xpost from GD: GOP is paying trolls to "Blog Attack

[kristopher]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7111916&mesg_id=7111916

Seemed relevant to recent conversations here.

[villager]

1. that would explain a lot about certain recent DU posts..

n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. It would explain a thing or three

However, this particular program doesn’t seem to match this particular forum (i.e. DU is not limited to any particular “district.”) It looks more like something for local newspaper reader “blogs.”

[kristopher]

5. That's a limited sample from which to draw a conclusion, don't you think?

http://www.advantageconsultants.org/03_services.html

A sample:
Advantage Consultants has provided consulting services from the courthouse to the White House over the past twenty five years. Advantage Consultants can put together a complete "turn-key" campaign for a candidate, referenda issue or committee that provides the winning edge in any effort. Using cutting edge tactics and strategy that comes from a lifetime of success, Advantage Consultants can provide the plan that will put your campaign in the winning column on election day.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. An extremely limited sample

I believe I made that plain. Note my repeated use of, “this particular.”

[kristopher]

7. That isn't how I read your use of "particular"

You are making an attempt to discredit the idea that DU might be subject to such infiltration.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. That's how you read it.

That does not mean that’s how I wrote it.

[kristopher]

9. Of course it isn't.

[Enrique]

3. that explains all the people that disagree with me

I knew there had to be an explanation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Touché

:toast:

[joshcryer]

10. If you have evidence of this please contact a moderator immediately. Such people should be banned.

Otherwise if you are just making baseless insinuations to stir the pot, feel free to shut the fuck up.

[kristopher]

11. You certainly seem eager to shut down this line of discussion with false logic.

Let's look:

1) "If you have evidence of this please contact a moderator immediately."

I agree.

2) "Such people should be banned."
I agree.

3) "Otherwise if you are just making baseless insinuations to stir the pot, feel free to shut the fuck up.
Not so fast there, buckaroo. You are asserting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If we can't currently prove that such activities are being conducted by individual posters, then discussion of the obvious fact that it is being done should be subject to you telling us to "shut the fuck up".

This is the second time you've said the same thing.

Why? It is clearly faulty logic.

[joshcryer]

13. Nah, I said "if you are trying to stir the pot."

That is not for me to decide, but if a moderator thinks you are, then they are free to lock the post.

[kristopher]

15. Riiiiiight...

Now we are back to that pesky old "pragmatic competence" thing that you don't understand.

[joshcryer]

16. You mean making shit up about what I'm saying?

Are you trying to stir the pot? Trying to call people out like you did not even a week ago in a thread that I believe ultimately got locked because you were getting so insane?

[jpak]

12. LOL!!!!1111

:rofl:

[Prometheuspan]

14. "now your calling me a duck?"

8th grade teacher to class clown; "quit acting like a jerk!"
clown, "Now your calling me a jerk in front of everybody, ? how dare you call me names in front of everybody?"

teacher; "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck."

clown; "So now your calling me a duck?"

:rofl:

[kristopher]

17. It's becoming more obvious every day, isn't it? nt