Why It's Time to Leave Facebook

I joined Facebook primarily as a means of commenting on PolitiFact's fact check articles. It was and remains the only option for doing that, apart from commenting on Twitter.

But Facebook has an incomprehensible commenting system.

I can make a comment and then the record of that comment will disappear from my activity log. I think when that happens it means my comment was in reply to somebody who later blocked me. Okay, but why disappear the comment from my activity log?

I can make a comment that stays on my activity log but I cannot view it on the page location. Why? I don't know. And I don't know who can see the "public" comment, if anybody. I do have some evidence that others can see the comments I've made that I'm not permitted to view. How does that make sense?

Here's an example of how that works. I made a comment on a comment Z Smorris made on PolitiFact's page:

 

Facebook allows me to click on the comment to (supposedly) go to its location at PolitiFact's Facebook page.

That leads here:

No sign of it, though of course the default view is "Most Relevant" (upper right-hand corner). It's worth noting that the only relevant comment is obvious spam. Perfect, right?

So, let's change the view from "Most Relevant" to "All Comments" and see what happens.

Click!

We get a view that does not have any sign of Smorris' comment or of my reply. We get a different comment of mine prioritized to the top.  So we have to go digging into the other 46 comments (apparently some of those do not count toward the "42" listed above) to find Smorris' comment.

Away we go.

There's Smorris' comment! Now all I have to do is click on the "8 replies" and I'll see my reply. Right?

We're so naive.

 

No, I didn't hit the "Reply" button. I hit the "8 replies" button. That's what I got.

This system makes it extraordinarily difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation. It's ridiculous. And I have done experiments with similar outcomes over the past year.

New Deep Purple

Time for some new music by a great old group (featuring my favorite guitarist, Steve Morse).

It amazes me how good Ian Gillan's singing sounds on these Bob Ezrin-produced records.

Phantastic Ferniture

Yeah, I haven't posted much music lately. But I'm way into Phantastic Ferniture right not. They're from Australia. And worth checking out. So check them out.

The Raconteurs: "Sunday Driver"

Already over 1.1 million views. Add yours today.

I guess no embeds enabled. So click to watch on YouTube.

Hubert Gaskins (how not to think)

Over the past few days my Twitter experience was marred by the illogical interloping of one Hubert Gaskins. Gaskins, like many others, has mastered the art of illogical thinking, at least as represented by his argumentation on Twitter.

Now. Why waste my time refuted pathetic argumentation by the apparently little-known Gaskins?

Good question. I ordinarily wouldn't bother, but he's proved persistent in tagging me on Twitter so that his ridiculous comments cross my path of vision. That's despite me asking him not to tag me with any more replies unless he fulfills one particular (likely impossible) qualification.

So, if Gaskins persists, my replies will link to this post, which provides all the evidence a person should need to see why I take Gaskins' comments completely unseriously. He's earned it.

Gaskins tweeted to the PolitiFact Bias Twitter account, spouting baseless assertions:

How did Gaskins respond to the encouragement he was given to support his accusations, including a link explaining that the editors of PolitiFact Bias see no utility in criticism unaccompanied by specifics (facts)?

One can only marvel.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, Gaskins responds to the encouragement to provide specifics by failing to provide specifics. He says the very existence of "PolitiFact Bias" proves its bias, implying that Gaskins takes it as axiomatic the neutrality of PolitiFact.com. What other condition could make the existence of PolitiFact Bias an automatic proof of bias? It's hard to imagine that Gaskins gave any serious thought to his claim.

Gaskins goes for the old "I've already offered solid evidence" trick. As though saying it makes it true.

What kind of "solid evidence" did he present?

Well, he baselessly accused me of lying, basing on his opinion on the idea that Trump's claim that he did not authorize Wolff's White House access was not relevant. That is, Trump's claim was not relevant to the truth value of Trump's claim, if one is paying attention to the logic of the discussion.

What use is there in trying to reason with a person who thinks that saying one authorized no access to the White House is perfectly equivalent to saying they denied all access to the White House?

The situation improves only marginally if Gaskins equivocally traded one type of denial for another. Under that condition, Gaskins would make himself a willful equivocator.

 At least Gaskins got a "like" for this one.

Gaskins believes a contradiction exists if Trump says he did not speak to Wolff "for (the) book" and Wolff says he talked to Trump.

Does Gaskins not realize that authors interviewing subjects for a book tend to set up an appointed time for the interview? They don't just talk to people conversationally and then claim to have interviewed them for the book. Gaskins repeatedly displays this skill for ignoring nuance, and displays no apparent realization that people often use true statements to mislead an audience. If Gaskins understands this without showing it in print, then he apparently fails to realize that PolitiFact tends to give Democrats (and Republicans, though to a lesser degree) ratings like "Half True" for true-but-misleading statements.

Again, Gaskins' "solid evidence" lacks substance. He charges PolitiFact Bias with "using" its conservative bias to find bias from PolitiFact. How did PolitiFact Bias do this? Gaskins has no specifics. People can look and judge, he says. I agree, and I repeat our challenge to our critics to bring any specifics to our attention. If our critics can't think of specifics then maybe they should re-evaluate.

Gaskins' says the entire PolitiFact Bias article is "awash in selective semantics." With all those "selective semantics" to choose from, why does Gaskins not offer any examples? Is it so hard to pick one among the many that Gaskins finds himself too paralyzed to choose?

PolitiFact Bias (Jeff D) asks Gaskins for specifics backing his charge. Gaskins replies without specifics. PolitiFact Bias, he says, includes only the parts that favor the narrative. If we left out anything important, Gaskins doesn't identify it.

Gaskins apparently has the energy and enthusiasm to keep up his act forever.

But we find his act justifies taking a dismissive attitude toward his comments.

The Return of the Galactic Cowboys!

Happy.

Testing a Facebook comments embed

A "Half True" update

Years ago, I pointed out to PolitiFact that it had offered readers two different definitions of "Half True." In November 2011, I posted to note PolitiFact's apparent acknowledgment of the problem, evidenced by its effort to resolve the discrepant definitions.

It's over five years later. But PolitiFact Florida (archived version, just in case PolitiFact Florida notices something amiss) either did not get the memo or failed to fully implement the change.

We then decide which of our six rulings should apply:

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
HALF TRUE – The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
FALSE – The statement is not accurate.
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

PolitiFact Florida still publishes what was apparently the original standard PolitiFact definition of "Half True." PolitiFact National revised its definition in 2011, adding "partially" to the definition so it read "The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context."

PolitiFact uses the updated definition on its main page, and directs readers to PolitiFact's main "principles" page for more information.

It's not even clear if PolitiFact Florida's main page links to PolitiFact Florida's "About" page. It may be a vestigial limb of sorts, helping us trace PolitiFact's evolution.

In one sense, the inconsistency means relatively little. After all, PolitiFact's founder, Bill Adair, has himself said that the "Truth-O-Meter" ratings are "entirely subjective." That being the case, it matters little whether "partially" occurs in the definition of "Half True."

The main problem from the changing definition comes from PolitiFact's irresponsible publication of candidate "report cards" that supposedly help voters decide which candidate they ought to support.

Why should subjective report cards make any difference in preferring one candidate over another?

The changing definition creates one other concern--one that I've written about before: Academic researchers (who really ought to know better) keep trying to use PolitiFact's ratings as though they represent reliable truth measurements. That by itself is a preposterous idea, given the level of subjectivity inherent in PolitiFact's system. But the inconsistency of the definition of "Half True" makes it even sillier.

PolitiFact's repeated failure to fix the problems we point out helps keep us convinced that PolitiFact checks facts poorly. We think a left-leaning ideological bubble combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect best explains PolitiFact's behavior in these cases.

Reminder: PolitiFact made a big to-do about changing the label "Barely True" to "Mostly False," but shifted the definition of "Half True" without letting the public in on the long-running discrepancy.

Too much transparency?

New music: Frankie Rose "Red Museum"

How long has it been since I last posted a music video.

No matter. Here's a new one by Frankie Rose.

Just trying something

Having trouble uploading to Tineye, so I'm publishing this here to give a URL to see if that helps.

Deep Purple: "Time for Bedlam"

Looks like Deep Purple will produce another magical album (again with the help of producer Bob Ezrin) with the upcoming release of Infinite.

This advance track serves as evidence:

Nifty Music: "Hello Today" by Black Honey

One of my favorite new(ish) bands of 2016.

Florida primary vote 2016: Switching parties?

Okay, here's a voting anecdote from the 2016 primary election.

This year's vote includes the goofy populists Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Trump claims to have appeal to Democrats. Sanders claims to have appeal to Republicans.

I've heard talk about Democrats voting Republican to help set up a Trump vs. Democrat national election final that favors the Democrat. I'm not aware of any solid evidence supporting this type of charge. But my anecdote may relate.



Part One

Upon arriving at my precinct, I saw a woman coming out of the precinct complaining that "someone" changed her party. She appeared irate, and I inferred that the the change in registration affected her ability to vote for her favored candidate.

An election worker asked the woman to what party she had been switched. For the sake of my own curiosity I wish she had answered the question, but she did not.

Part Two

Upon getting in line to have my photo ID and signature matched, I overheard a woman ahead of me in line request a change in her party registration. To me it sounded like the election worker described a way the woman could change her party and vote in the primary. But according to this article the deadline for changing parties was Feb. 16, 2016.

It's certainly possible that I received the wrong impression about what the woman was told about changing her party. I would not allege any impropriety based on my impression of what I heard.

Conclusion

What does it all mean?

Maybe nothing. While I don't recall ever hearing anything at the polling station about changing party affiliations, perhaps I was keyed to pay more attention to the issue because of the reports I have heard. Or maybe changing parties was discussed in my presence in the past and I just don't remember it.

Lindsey Cohen: "Unhappy Ending"

I'm eager to post a new video from Miranda Lee Richards' new album, but meanwhile here's a song I like from Lindsey Cohen.



I don't quite get the video. I have nothing against girls dancing around or lying in a heap on the floor. I just don't see how it relates to this particular song.

Sometimes I think video directors are simply determined to make sure they hire some dancers.

Cool song, though.

Rival Sons: "Pressure and Time"

I haven't been listening to the Rival Sons long enough to have a favorite song yet. I heard they opened for Deep Purple on a European tour and so checked out the group.

Wow.

It's like Led Zeppelin with a dash of White Stripes. The sound is classic rock with constant nods to the blues, with many of the songs clocking in near a White Stripish 3 minutes or so. The singer can really wail and demonstrates impressive versatility. The band is excellent, and the guitarist knows how to lay down a riff.



Yeah, you'll probably think of Zeppelin when you listen, but on top of that you'll be going "This is a great song!" "What a riff!" "Man, that guy can really sing!"

Check it out.

Music: Flying Colors' "Bombs Away"

When Steve Morse isn't playing guitar for Deep Purple he works on other stuff. Lately that other stuff is mostly the supergroup Flying Colors, featuring Mike Portnoy (Winery Dogs, ex-Dream Theater), Neal Morse (ex-Spock's Beard), Casey McPherson (Alpha Rev) and Dave LaRue (Steve Morse Band, Dave LaRue Band).

Flying Colors is releasing its second live Blu-Ray/DVD/CD recording this month, equaling its number of studio recordings.  Here's a video of the song "Bombs Away." It wasn't one of my favorites from the studio album but it translates beautifully to the stage.

Nifty Music: "Rainbow Quartz" by the Grip Weeds

Hippies!

This video from the Grip Weeds reminds me a little of that old video gag where Stephen Colbert plays the veteran interviewing people in Berkeley about the local Army recruiting office.

But it's a great song, magnificently channeling late 60s early 70s rock vibe. The Beatles with a slightly harder Who edge.

Sure, the video is a live show with imperfect syncing. Enjoy the song.

Nifty Music: Jessica Long and the New Kind

Usually when I post musical content I make sure it's a video. A quality video.

This one is audio with a still picture. Why? Because it's a good song with no "official"-looking quality video to match. There's a good song by the same group on YouTube, but I find the video irritating. For those who find that hard to imagine or just don't care about it while at the same time wanting to hear another tune by Jessica Long & the New Kind, have at it.

Jessica Long & the New Kind are in strong rotation right now with The Maybe Somedays and Black Honey. Still waiting on a high-quality video for the latter, though this fan video might account for my next post.

Whitehorse: "Downtown"

I've been a bit slow getting on board with Whitehorse, a Canadian songwriting duo structurally in line with the Weepies. Listened to a few tracks from a past album. Didn't quite pull the trigger on any downloads. But the latest album I like better. One track from the new Whitehorse album has me hooked. It's got a Raveonettes vibe but with a dash of the White Stripes.

The Maybe Somedays: "All At Once"

I stumbled over this group on Emusic a few weeks ago. They're now in heavy rotation. The Maybe Somedays occupy roughly the same rock-pop niche as Toad the Wet Sprocket. But with a slightly harder edge.

Enjoy: