Strange citation of the week

Some chap going by the screen name of "KarateKid" helped bump traffic here a bit by linking one of my posts in a commentary thread over at the Huffington Post.

The citation, along with similar ones from Hot Air and Reason, not to mention a sore thumb oddball from Time's Swampland blog, did not appear to make much sense:

For those of you who think Politifacts (sic) is some kind of objective bible, read some of this. I DARE you, righties.

http://rea­son.com/bl­og/2010/12­/17/politi­facts-lie-­of-the-yea­r-is

http://hot­air.com/ar­chives/201­0/12/17/po­litifacts-­biggest-li­e-2/

http://sub­loviate.bl­ogspot.com­/2011/02/p­olitifacts­-numbers-r­acket.html

http://swa­mpland.blo­gs.time.co­m/2010/12/­17/politif­acts-lie-o­f-the-year­/

Sorry, you righties. St. Petersburg Times is a conservati­ve paper. Maybe they can fool you but here, you're among educated people so save your _palaver.

The post here was about PolitiFact's inconsistent standards in handling numbers claims. While the post does note that PolitiFact went soft on Ron Paul compared to Mitt Romney, there's nothing else in it to support the notion that PolitiFact has a conservative bias. PolitiFact was soft on Paul respecting an issue more popular with the left and libertarians than with mainstream Republicans.

The point was that PolitiFact's methods are suspect, not that the example amounts to an ideological bias, though if one tried to wring evidence of bias out of it the evidence probably favors the left more than the right.

I don't recommend using the example as evidence of bias except where many other examples show that one side is favored clearly more often than the other.

Is "KarateKid" a troll? I've no idea. His number of fans (2073) argues against it, at first blush.