Pennylynn wrote:
While reading this something stuck out... "No formal ethics charges were ever FILED."
The second thing that sticks in my mind, which was stated better in the comment section, Michelle was licensed in 1989. She surrendered her license in 1993. That was long before any thought of winning an e******n. Don’t you find it even a little odd that someone who went to school for a long time and spent a lot of money to do so would surrender that license after less than 4 years? Indeed, there is a response by the owner of this site that stands out: "The point is we don’t know the reason. The fact check is looking at the claim that they did it to avoid ethics charges. There isn’t evidence for that at this time so it is a false claim until proven otherwise." So, putting this all together... there was no ethics charges filed, this does not mean there was none or the surrender of license was not a condition for not filing. The website is only going by filed or "evidence" of no filed ethics charges. And then there is the curious thing.... Michelle gave up her license after only 4 years. And then finally, “Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”) is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four: true, false, unknown between true and false, being unknowable (among the first three. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.” I think that Stephen Mikesell, pretty much put a bow on top of this "fact check" and would also cover the basement startup checker called Snoops.
While reading this something stuck out... "No... (
show quote)
As usual, in your distinct and formidable style, you seem to gloss over/overlook "blatant lie" glaringly standing out. Snopes, huh? Did you miss the part where it was written "Based on many credible fact checkers debunking this, we rate this claim a BLATANT LIE?"
The comment section, as is usual (just like OPP), full of pros & cons for the source's judgement/ruling. In other words, individual opinions. All things considered, it really does boils down to what people choose or want to believe...t***h be damned. C'est la vie.
Always a pleasure, Penny.