Dear list, I'd like to explain why it was appropriate and necessary to react strongly to Melanie's recent use of the straw man fallacy to support her baseless attack on the petition gatherers. First, it was my point about research problems/issues, (and not about personal misconduct), that she was absurdly recreating as a straw man support of her attack.
I don't doubt that she doesn't fully understand our discussions about voodoo polls, etc. Her anecdote was making an absurd point about the responsibilities of the person signing his or her name, address, etc to an exact statement of opinion, and the responsibilities of a petition gatherer. If she understood the problems in her anecdote, she would have tried something else to attack the petition gatherers. If we didn't know it was Melanie writing, we still would have seen the point as silly. Of course, the petition gatherers have responsibilities regarding honest information during the 1 or 2 minute interaction but the signer has a whole different set of responsibilities than Melanie is asserting. It's ridiculous to compare a petition process to a voodoo survey. Enough said, you understand. Secondly, we've seen what happens on our very list when these various tactics (ad hominem, straw man,etc) are unleashed to change, destroy or obfuscate discussions. The people who I know involved in the opposition to the hotel are very much responsible and trustworthy. I don't know them all. Of course, if issues would show-up in the way the petition gatherers conducted themselves; I would expect answers. It hasn't happened. Melanie provided nothing, and this type of fearmongering personal attack against her opponents is her pattern, not just a phenomenon because the larger topics are beyond her. She insinuated that the unidentified individual was intentionally trying to withhold information from someone who didn't know anything about the issue! Well her friend did the right thing by not signing a statement she didn't know enough about but made a poor decision to go to Melanie. Had I talked to a potential signer for an hour, I doubt that I would have given much attention to all the deceptive, evasive, and discredited developer's presentation details. If you go back and read Melanie's anecdote, it is very clear that the intention of her presentation, information, and absurd straw man is that you shouldn't trust the unidentified petition gatherer and probably not the rest of them. Well she can't say that Glenn, who has credibility, explained and agreed with her condemnation of the petition signatures!! (If you hear that anyone gets such nonsense, feel free to copy my posts and give them to the victim.) I don't want those clowns to start getting away with this crap and start sending us back to the pre-barking cheese days! Thanks for your time, Glenn
