[Vision2020] And the Hits Just keep On Coming . . .

[g. crabtree]

My apologies, it appears that I was incorrect. It would seem that you didn't 
lift you argument from the huffington post, The far more likely source looks 
like your old friends at kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/12/122359/661/796/596201

Coincidently the same date as your post. Weird huh? A quick click at toward 
the end of the article and you've "referenced the primary sources," 
paraphrase (quite closely) the article for us here on the V and you're 
golden. Of course there is still no indication what the contingency money 
was spent on in any of the years referenced or whether the money in question 
came from that source but hey what's a few minor details when ya got a Veep 
to disparage.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And the Hits Just keep On Coming . . .


> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Is it your contention that Dr. Harkins CPA,  Professor Emeritus of the
>> University of Idaho Collage of Business, Department of Accounting is 
>> unable
>> to read a small town budget report and has the facts all wrong?
>
> No. It is, rather, my contention that he didn't, or did and then
> thought that no one would actually check. I'm not calling him
> incompetent; I'm calling him a liar. Again, for anyone that's
> interested, you can check the '98 cite on page 65. The contingency
> numbers correspond to the police chief's quotations from the
> Frontiersman article. As for anything further, I am not going to shout
> a full and unnecessary bibliography at Dr. Harkins' departing back.
>
>> Or, as is somewhat more likely given previous discussions I have had with
>> you on this forum, did you lift the whole thing in its entirety from the
>> huffington post and throw that bit about primary sources in an attempt to
>> lend a semblance of authenticity and credence to your argument?
>
> Gee, Gary. If you thought so, you'd think you'd've at least accused me
> of doing so before. We've had quite a bit of correspondence, ande
> you've actually never accused me of that, which is sort of amazing
> given the broad miscellany of personal accusations you've made against
> me over the years.
>
> Again, I'm telling you outright: no, I didn't read 300 pages of
> financial disclosures from beginning to end. Rather, I found someone
> else pointing at the cites, I looked them up, confirmed that they were
> accurate, and sent Jeff directly to the primary source, evading the
> inevitable argument about the reliability of a Washington Monthly
> comment thread and the 'those could've been cut-and-pasted from
> anywhere' argument regarding the snapshots from the PDF. Following
> bibliographic chains to primary sourcesis a time-honored research
> technique, and one that saves a tremendous amount of
> wheel-reinventing.
>
> I'm hadn't claimed at any point to have done original research, only
> that the primary sources supported my argument. Again, you aren't
> accusing me of lying. You aren't disputing the facts as they stand.
> You aren't accusing me of cutting-and-pasting language from the
> article. You're merely making an issue of how I happened to know why
> Dr. Harkins was wrong.
>
> -- ACS
>