Quote:
Originally Posted by andy764383
Since I didn't say it was a blog I'm not sure what your point is.
|
I had construed your post that you might be expressing doubt whether the linked article is fictitious or somehow unreliable concerning its authenticity.
I'll take the rest a bit out of order . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy764383
But to directly address your point, where is the original pdf of that article? If they scan their newspaper to pdf, then where is it? See my point? . . . I did a search of their archives for all of 2000 with "Palin" as the search term. Six hits total and nothing of relevence to this issue. Also, just to totally beat a dead horse, the article you linked in your OP has a number of errors a newspaper wouldn't allow. At least not while maintaining any professional credibility.
|
I'm the first to admit I know jack squat about website formatting. It's just on their website, and it's a real paper. The paper isn't writing anything declaring it's a bogus article or anything similar being said out there. The media is also relying upon it, which assumes they have verified it to be authentic given they are quoting from it and are still further investigating the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy764383
. . . Nothing you say invalidates my point that in a hyperpartisan election cycle you have to be careful. The article may in fact be the genuine thing from 8 years ago but since Palin herself isn't quoted in it we can't draw any conclusions one way or the other, so it being a genuine article is still not really relevent. . . .
|
I differ.
Facts and inferences readily lead to acceptable conclusions. For example, if a guy is accused of stealing your spare TV and tools from your garage, and the man is caught walking down the street with the TV and tools in his hands, you don't know him, he doesn't know you, you say you didn't give permission to him to take it, etc, but the guy claims he just found it all on the sidewalk and picked it up, people are going to conclude guilt from that even though the guy denied he stole it.
Unless and until she can, if able, rebut it with genuine evidence to the contrary, I'm going to conclude she knew and approved. I already stated many of the facts and inferences drawn in my OP. Moreover, let's look at Palin's response to this from the USAToday article linked in the OP:
Quote:
. . . Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."
"Gov. Palin's position could not be more clear," she said. "To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."
Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. The campaign cited the governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for shelters. . . .
|
That's a boilerplate denial, cloaked in self-serving puffery language, much like all defendants do when arrested and/or in court, even when they're guilty as sin.
The boilerplate denial is coming from Camella, Palin's spokesperson and authorised representative, but Palin is saying nothing herself and avoiding any further comment.
Palin's spokesperson refused to answer any questions beyond the boilerplate 'outrage' statement, including questions as to when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.
I draw an adverse inference against Palin on that. It is to be expected from Palin or her authorised spokesperson to answer such questions because any reasonable person would do so if the answers were acquitting to her, but she has refused to answer. Therefore, the proper conclusion is that she is refusing to answer them because answering the questions would betray her boilerplate denial.
Further, Palin's spokesperson instead cited to other irrelevant matters to the subject matter of the topic and questioning, which is a red herring diversionary/misdirection tactic.
Avoiding answers on the direct topic and seeking red herring diversions is a logical fallacy intended to misdirect and fool the recipient, and from that I also conclude Palin's denial is false.