Oh. So applying a word with a negative connotation to what I'm doing somehow makes it invalid, without merit, unfair, or something of that nature, am I right?
Well, alright. You can throw a slur at my posting of Santorum's Senate record if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a truthful record of what he actually voted for and against while he was an elected representative.
It's information that is vital for making an informed choice in this election, no matter how ugly it is. I think most conservatives would agree that our side votes on intelligence, not emotion, don't you?
How could a word make something you did "invalid", "without merit", or anything else? Words describe what a person's opinion is OF something, not the other way around. Words are the description, not the definition.
Posting a cut-and-paste multi-page item to multiple threads based on the candidate being discussed in the threads is called "spamming" here; it's the word used to describe that action. You could easily put that information on your home page, and put a link to it here, or put it in it's own thread, and put a link the thread.
Or, you could try to be the second person in the thread, and post your huge comment to the thread in the hopes it discourages people from commenting in the thread, or allows you to hijack the thread from discussing the article posted to disscussing your article. But then you might get people commenting on your tactic.
If your interest was in providing vital information for the election, you wouldn't have dismissed the idea of putting a similar sheet together for Gingrich. Because you expect other people to do that, it is clear your intent is to discourage supporters of other candidates in the hopes it helps your candidate. That's fine, but don't pretend it's a "public service", just admit it's partisan advocacy and be proud of it.
I'd like to think conservatives would vote with their heads, not their hearts, but that doesn't appear to be the case.