"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.
kevkrom saw the posts. If there was anything significant in those posts, kevkrom would have said so.
Moreover, if those deletions were the ‘banning offense,’ Mia T would have been banned AT THAT POINT. She was not. You are ridiculous.
If there was any connection to the deletions, it is this: Mia T’s and kevkrom’s requests for the deletions brought the controversial thread to the attention of the people who make the decisions to ban. There you have it. The connection.
Now to your silly statement about hypothetical argument. It makes my point. Hang it up, already. You are not helping your cause.
Cut your losses, get some gumption and debate someone who can actually answer you.