First of all - are you confusing me with gp poster? It seems that way. I just like calling people out on falsely declaring fallacy. I do it a lot, check my comm

First of all - are you confusing me with gp poster? It seems that way. I just like calling people out on falsely declaring fallacy. I do it a lot, check my comment history. Second, this conflation was on my list of "to discuss" about the article (obviously I can't prove this, and the tone of your comment suggests you won't believe it anyway, but I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt), it just also helped me in my fallacy fallacy busting. Third as to your fallacies: 1. I never made stuff up about Koch et al., hell I didn't even make any comments about them either way. Thanks for actually making stuff up about me (while cleverly disguising it in an accusation of the same. Further, I have never previously said anything about koch, if you google ' sophacles koch ' your comment is the first hit, followed a bunch of academic stuff and some old comment in a thread where someone else mentions Koch. 2. I tend to point out biases and conflations whether or not I agree with them. Or I try to anyway. In this case, yes I generally don't like the Cato institute, but if you look at my writing above, I think it's pretty obvious I agree with the premise that a computer is not independent of the people programming it for free speech purposes. If you would like to make a comprehensive list of my comments showing otherwise (not cherry picking the ones that don't support your statement, but say a random sampling or something), I will gladly rescind this point. 3. All your concern over poisoning the well and fake "objectiveness" certainly seems a bit wasted in the same comment where you make actually nasty statements against me, and throw a bone about how something "might have been an interesting discussion". It just makes your statement meaner, and look super defensive.