9 ms·

The author spends most of this lengthy post congratulating himself for winning an argument against a poorly-educated call-center worker who is required to read

by zazen 11y ago

The author spends most of this lengthy post congratulating himself for winning an argument against a poorly-educated call-center worker who is required to read from a script. This leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Apart from anything else, it distracts from the point about alleged push-polling which is notionally the reason for the post.

skewart 11y ago
Also, I didn't get the impression that he was congratulating himself, just being a bit dramatic, and clearly pretty emotionally worked up over the fact the Clinton campaign was resorting to such an underhanded and dirty tactic. But, he definitely did go more than a little overboard. He probably could have been much more effective in getting more info or changing the caller's mind if he had been calmer. Now the caller will just remember being yelled at by some angry person, and not the message he was trying to get across. [Edited because I'm clearly still half asleep and probably shouldn't be commenting HN until after I get out of bed and have some coffee.]
- Deregibus 11y ago
  I'll leave open the possibility that I'm missing something here, but all immediate evidence points to Nolan Dalla being a man.
  - skewart 11y ago
    Hah, well, I can't say I know something you don't. I'm not sure where I got that from. I thought about double checking before writing but I didn't. Lesson learned.
- peeters 11y ago
  http://www.nolandalla.com/category/picture-1/ http://www.nolandalla.com/category/picture-1/
- brey 11y ago
  > INTERVIEWER: Mr. Dalla, do you have a few minutes to share your opinions with us?” > ME: “Sure, why not? Go ahead.”
blueblob 11y ago
Additionally the disclaimer that the author is working on the Sanders campaign should have come up front.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  As in "is advocating for", or "is a supporter of" Sanders, not "is employed by"; or at least that's the impression I get.
  - peeters 11y ago
    Not sure how you get that from "working actively for".
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      I'm not sure what your point here is but I see several possibilities: * Is independently supporting Sanders' campaign, maybe even volunteering. * Is gainfully employed by a pro-Sanders PAC. * Is gainfully employed by a something other than a PAC that is pro-Sanders. * Is gainfully employed directly by the Sanders campaign. * Something else It isn't clear to me which of those is the case, but I assume it's the first. If he's actually employed by Sanders, that'd make his post a pretty odd thing to do. I think there are a lot better ways to have dealt with it (actually, I guess that's true either way).
- peeters 11y ago
  Especially since he includes this earlier in the piece to make him seem like an impartial observer: > For those who suspect that I’m a Clinton-hater, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve written glowingly about Clinton many times and even gone so far as to call her “the most accomplished woman in American history.” Even with these recent revelations I’m about to disclose, I continue to stand by those words of praise. I mean, you're not a Clinton hater, but that you are "working actively for" her opponent might be worth a mention in the same breath.
bsaul 11y ago
Asked myself the same thing. How much time does one has to loose to write an entire post about having political arguments with the human equivalent of a chatbot..
peeters 11y ago
I was hanging on for a while, but he lost me here: > ME: “I could destroy any one of your arguments in just a couple of seconds. Do you realize you are talking to someone with a degree in political science who has probably written more about politics than everyone in your office put together? There's an entire subreddit (/r/iamverysmart) for this kind of stuff. He could have made the same point by relaying the questions he was asked but without his responses, but he opted for self-gratification. Too bad, because he does have a point about push polling being a really dirty practice. I still remember back to the South Carolina scandal with Bush and McCain.

by zazen 11y ago

skewart 11y ago

Also, I didn't get the impression that he was congratulating himself, just being a bit dramatic, and clearly pretty emotionally worked up over the fact the Clinton campaign was resorting to such an underhanded and dirty tactic. But, he definitely did go more than a little overboard. He probably could have been much more effective in getting more info or changing the caller's mind if he had been calmer. Now the caller will just remember being yelled at by some angry person, and not the message he was trying to get across. [Edited because I'm clearly still half asleep and probably shouldn't be commenting HN until after I get out of bed and have some coffee.]

Deregibus 11y ago
I'll leave open the possibility that I'm missing something here, but all immediate evidence points to Nolan Dalla being a man.
- skewart 11y ago
  Hah, well, I can't say I know something you don't. I'm not sure where I got that from. I thought about double checking before writing but I didn't. Lesson learned.
peeters 11y ago
http://www.nolandalla.com/category/picture-1/ http://www.nolandalla.com/category/picture-1/
brey 11y ago
> INTERVIEWER: Mr. Dalla, do you have a few minutes to share your opinions with us?” > ME: “Sure, why not? Go ahead.”

blueblob 11y ago

Additionally the disclaimer that the author is working on the Sanders campaign should have come up front.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
As in "is advocating for", or "is a supporter of" Sanders, not "is employed by"; or at least that's the impression I get.
- peeters 11y ago
  Not sure how you get that from "working actively for".
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    I'm not sure what your point here is but I see several possibilities: * Is independently supporting Sanders' campaign, maybe even volunteering. * Is gainfully employed by a pro-Sanders PAC. * Is gainfully employed by a something other than a PAC that is pro-Sanders. * Is gainfully employed directly by the Sanders campaign. * Something else It isn't clear to me which of those is the case, but I assume it's the first. If he's actually employed by Sanders, that'd make his post a pretty odd thing to do. I think there are a lot better ways to have dealt with it (actually, I guess that's true either way).
peeters 11y ago
Especially since he includes this earlier in the piece to make him seem like an impartial observer: > For those who suspect that I’m a Clinton-hater, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve written glowingly about Clinton many times and even gone so far as to call her “the most accomplished woman in American history.” Even with these recent revelations I’m about to disclose, I continue to stand by those words of praise. I mean, you're not a Clinton hater, but that you are "working actively for" her opponent might be worth a mention in the same breath.

bsaul 11y ago

Asked myself the same thing. How much time does one has to loose to write an entire post about having political arguments with the human equivalent of a chatbot..

peeters 11y ago

I was hanging on for a while, but he lost me here: > ME: “I could destroy any one of your arguments in just a couple of seconds. Do you realize you are talking to someone with a degree in political science who has probably written more about politics than everyone in your office put together? There's an entire subreddit (/r/iamverysmart) for this kind of stuff. He could have made the same point by relaying the questions he was asked but without his responses, but he opted for self-gratification. Too bad, because he does have a point about push polling being a really dirty practice. I still remember back to the South Carolina scandal with Bush and McCain.