If I ever needed examples of strawmen I'd look at Jean Kazez's post.
For e.g.
#1 Some think that by standing up for Chris Mooney on the issue of how he vetted Tom Johnson
See now there are multiple issues here.
a. Did Chris Mooney vet the identity?
b. Did Chris Mooney vet the incident?
Whatever has come out so far only points to a), and people have commented numerous times that even if Tom Johnson existed , the incident seemed fishy. There has been no information at all about whether the incident was true or not and what was done to check it out. Continuously harping that Chris Mooney did vet the identity of the person is missing the point. Mooney did use this incident as Exhibit A. and has not apologized for it, he has said sorry for being deceived , not the same thing.
#2 Some people think it's "ethically blinkered" to deal with the vetting issue, without concerning myself with other gripes people have about Chris.
Again its ethically blinkered , but its not to do with the other gripes(for e.g. banning Ophelia Benson). Its to do with this incident in entirety. Chris Mooney could have been deceived convincingly, yes it happens to all of us, but what has been the response after the deception was discovered?. It is being blinkered to just look at whether the vetting (See also #1) of the identity was thorough. It is also silly to expect that we should take a couple of people statements as face value. What next look at Dick Cheney to vet G W Bush's policies? (Trust me . the evidence for WMD's is sound!)
#3 Some have an irrational level of trust in "William
No we dont. We dont know when he lied and when he didnt, But we also cant take Chris's word at face value now, and there is no reason to take Jean's either. The whole way this has been handled is bad. The evidence could not be shared with identities protected? Really? It had to be shared with TB and I cant think of a single example where TB has had any disagreement with Mooney. It has to be shared with Jean who seems to have an uncanny talent of missing the point ?
and I can go on for almost all the points.
But the real irritant is this
"know to some degree have said such insulting things about me in the last 24 hours. In fact, I don't think it would be out of order for them to apologize. I'm certainly not giving anyone an opportunity to throw more inane insults at me, so comments are closed."Jean Kazez has no problem calling people juvenile, insulting , gullible etc etc. But oh we cant criticise Jean. Whats more we should not respond where accusations are made. I wonder why people don't have the courage to have their views questioned?. If you wish to take a public stance on something, be prepared to answer questions about it. Im not sure why Jean Kazez expected that saying "Ok Ive looked at the evidence , it looks good" would have everyone fall in line and say "its ok with jean , so its ok by me!"
Not all the people who criticized Jean on Jean's blog were insulting (I can't see what I commented was insulting and even then one of my comments was deleted)
Its one thing to say I dont have enough time to respond to comments, its quite another to present a flawed version of attempts and not give people a chance to respond. Yes Jean's blog and Jean's rules, but I'm not saying she can't do what shes done, just that this violates common courtesy. And yet , in some time , we can expect Jean to post some more on how Jean has been persecuted, victimized, insulted etc etc etc.
