Another entire campaign of lies from Gandalf. He quotes me referring to a vote. He acknowledges the distinction between the vote and the announcement. He then spends several pages insisting that I did not know the difference.
Gandalf, did I at any time give you an honest reason to think I was confused on this? Or was this just another chance for you to spin endless lies? Did I really "misleadingly infer that the actual decision itself went by with no scrutiny"
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13
th, 2016 at 9:29pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 13
th, 2016 at 6:53pm:
The August 31 vote in the senate was not reported at all by most outlets.
Probably because the decision was made on August 12 and the August 31 vote was a mere rubber stamp.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14
th, 2016 at 8:59am:
As it turns out the media did cover the decision, just not on the date you mistakenly thought it was made.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14
th, 2016 at 2:15pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 14
th, 2016 at 12:26pm:
Can you elaborate?
Sure, you made the claim that "no major outlet reported on the Senate decision" - because you thought it was made on August 31, when in fact it was made on August 12. Thats when the liberal-labor deal was made, and it was widely reported. The August 31 vote was a fait accompli as soon as the August 12 agreement was made, so of course it makes more sense for reporting to focus on the August 12 agreement.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14
th, 2016 at 8:30pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 14
th, 2016 at 6:21pm:
The senate vote happened on the 31st Gandalf. I have explained this already.
The deal was made on August 12, and was widely reported. I have explained this already. Since the August 12 deal made the August 31 vote a mere rubber stamp formality, reporting again on what we've already been told is redundant.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15
th, 2016 at 3:12pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 14
th, 2016 at 9:31pm:
You had to phrase that very carefully didn't you Gandalf? What's already "been told"?
Is it really that difficult to understand this simple point? The deal was made on August 12. Thats worth reporting on, and it was (granted, they don't seem to have reported this
together with the fact that it went against previous resolutions). It meant that the vote to make this formal on August 31 became a fait accompli. Reporting on the August 31 vote would be reporting on what we've already "been told" - ie that the senate had decided to use the order elect method. Or to put it another way, we already knew in advance what the result of the August 31 vote would be - it therefore makes more sense to report on the decision to make the August 31 vote a fait accompli, rather than the vote itself.
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15
th, 2016 at 7:27pm:
First we have the outrage over the non-reporting of the August 31 vote - misleadingly inferring that the actual decision itself went by with no scrutiny. Then we find out that in fact the decision itself was made on August 12 - which was widely reported. You didn't bother to point out that the August 31 vote was a rubber stamp on a deal that was already made - which would have shown that particular non-reporting in a completely different light.
One more explanation for Gandalf's benefit:
freediver wrote on Sep 17
th, 2016 at 12:12pm:
Gandalf also invented the story that I mistakenly believed the "senate decision" was made on August 31, rather than August 12. The truth is that I had made it clear all along that there was an agreement reached on August 12 and a Senate vote on August 31 (though it did take me a long time to find an article reporting the August 31 date). Gandalf invented the story that I was unaware of the August 12 decision or confused about the dates. He then went on to imply that the media could have reported on either the August 12 decision or the August 31 senate vote, but for some reason not both. Gandalf claimed he had to "delve into" my story to discover that the major parties reach an agreement on August 12 rather than August 31, despite me referring him rpeeatedly to the site home page with an entry dated prior to August 31, and despite Gandalf acknowledging links to threads I started, one of which was dated before August 31 and obviously only referred to the earlier announcement.
Forum
Pages: 
