You appear to have absolutely no idea what it means to make a hypothetical argument.
It is clear to me what Mia was saying. And it is consistent with everything I know about Mia, everything she has ever said to me, everything we have often debated about.
You never debated Mia when she could respond. Your attempt to pick apart her comments to fit your absurd little points and theories and to do so now, when she is no longer here to respond, looks, well, petty, ridiculous and yes, cowardly.
For your information, kevkrom confirmed what went down with those deleted posts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=5155#5155
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=5107#5107
"Your characterizations of the deleted posts are pretty much correct. The third was mine, deleted on my request after I was asked to do so by Mia. I made the deletion request as a gesture of goodwill -- however, I saw no legitimate reason that the original posts of Mia should have been pulled. If she wanted to get her facts straight, she should have done so prior to posting or else post a correction after the fact. I have never, nor will I ever, ask a post to be pulled because I made an error."
In other words, he confirms that her post had errors in fact.
You have NO IDEA if Jim Robinson thought those errors in fact were deliberate, and were an attempt to smear the candidate. If he did, he could well have banned her for that. After all, he banned FairOpinion for making a mistake in fact in a post, even though, just like Mia, FO asked for his own comment to be removed.
Unless you can channel JR, you don't know why she was banned. I said it could be because of false statements made in the deleted posts. I got that from reading kk's comment IN THE original thread, as well as Mia's. I've said I don't know if that is the reason or not, but it is plausible. Nothing you put here makes it implausible, and the referenced statements you link to lend credence to my claim.
Not only that, but kevkrom agrees with me, not you, about Mia's attack on Fred about running to help McCain:
However, on your point #3, Mia was doing more than just stating a so-called "plausible theory" (which I provided a counterargument to), she was using a reference for that theory her own previous vanity. In other words, since she was using herself as a citation, she was endorsing the theory, not just stating it.
Thanks for providing a link to support for both my statements.
I do know what it means to make a "hypothetical argument", and that's not what Mia was doing. She was making a plausible theory argument. She presented it as something that could well be true. And since it could only be true if Fred was lying to people about his real reason for thinking about running, she was calling him a decietful lying politician. And she knew she was doing that, in fact that was the message of her whole set of posts in that thread.
Her arguments were meant to attack his credibility and character. She even linked him with the S&L scandal.
I would have been happy to argue with her at any time I found anything she posted the least bit interesting or worthy. It's not hard to argue with people, and I have no qualms debating even with superior intellects. I've debated Shiavo with nationally recognized neurosurgeons, and debated fine points of the law with top-notch lawyers. Why do you think I'd be afraid to debate someone who copyrights her blog entries?
It's not my fault she got banned. It's not my fault she never wrote anything of interest to me before.
Anyway, I'm not arguing against her points. I'm arguing against YOUR points. God knows why. I don't care why she was banned, someone wanted to know and I offered a summary. Heck, when you offered to send people the "real scoop" about why she was banned, I sent you freepmail asking you for it, but you never responded. So why you NOW think you need to argue it with me in public I don't know. Maybe if you had responded in private, I would have included your information in my summary. I only came to my own "conclusions" because I had no other information to go by.
Mia T. posted a vanity thread where she claimed that if we don’t vote for Rudy, the blood of all the dead babies would be on our hands. Then she said Fred was a globalist DC politician who couldn’t be trusted. It turned out she had posted two other vanity-style threads this month attacking Fred. In one she said denounced his lack of experience while completely ignoring his senate career, and in the other she claimed he was deceiving us and running just to help McCain. She linked both of those into her “what is pro-life” thread, hijacking and spamming her own thread.And she made two posts that were so bad she deleted them.
That is what got her banned.
as everybody can see, I don't claim that her two posts deleted got her banned, I said the entirety of that exchange, of which the two deleted comments were part, is what got her banned.
And as everybody can see, my characterization of her posts is spot-on, and in fact is not like what you mischaracterized MY comments as. Your claims about what I said were inaccurate, and your claims about what Mia did were inaccurate.
But more importantly, anybody reading my paragraph (posted long ago in this thread to peach in an attempt to explain the two bannings I knew about) can see I wasn't attacking Mia, I was simply trying to summarize briefly what happened in the thread in which she was banned. It wasn't an attack, I didn't argue against her points, I was just trying to be helpful.
Apparently you didn't find it helpful, but to jump to calling me a liar over it shows what I mean about how we have lost civility. You read what I wrote, you jumped to conclusions about why I wrote it, you decided I was a bad person, and you posted back calling me a liar and a coward.
So instead of allowing for a civil discussion of the matter which might clear up misunderstanding, your response was meant only to provoke argument and bad feelings.
fortunately, I think I was able to determine the basis of your complaints, and deal with the substantive issues involved, without resorting to a tit-for-tat personal barrage of insults.
I hope we can all learn from this, and see a way clear to discussing issues and disagreements civilly, and without personal attacks and insults.