In no time flat, Steve responded to my post from yesterday. Fortunately, he doesn't have much substantive to say, so this post will be considerably shorter than the last one. In fact, I'll do it bullet-point style.
- Steve begins "A lawyer claiming to know ’something’ about images is pawning himself as a legitimate authority on the Obama COLB forgery." That's absurd. I'm not claiming to be an authority on any forgery. That would require there to BE a forgery.
- In response to where I pointed out that Steve provided only a relatively tiny version of a FactCheck image that obscured the fact that his labels were blatantly untrue, Steve writes "I resized the image for posting only a reference image only and allowed the readers to judge for themselves by downloading the FactCheck image off FactCheck’s own web-site."
I suppose Steve "allowed the readers" to do that, to the extent that he didn't somehow prohibit them from doing so. But Steve did not provide a link to the FactCheck image in question. Nor did he provide a link to the FactCheck page where it appeared. Or the name or date of the article to narrow a search. The only way Steve's readers could download the FactCheck image would be if they first searched out and located the image for themselves, without any guidance whatsoever from Steve. And they had no reason to do that, since Steve gave no indication that the FactCheck image was any better or larger than the one he was sharing. Meanwhile, Steve had EVERY reason to hope that his readers wouldn't go to that trouble, because if they did, they would discover that he'd lied in his labeling.
- Similarly, notice that when I respond to a post of Steve's, I include a link to his post, so that my readers can read his comments for themselves. By contrast, notice that when Steve responds to me, he does not post a link to my post, or to this blog, or even mention this blog by name. This way he keeps his readers in the dark, and they have no clue what he's responding to apart from how Steve himself presents it.
- By not linking to my post, Steve successfully avoids having to ever address the fact that he flat-out lied when he called the image "In focus." He just glosses over that entirely. He also avoids having to address his use of inconsistent standards and the other problems I pointed out.
- Steve again asks "Why is ALL the lettering, including the date indicated, but no evidence of the SEAL." Because common sense should tell you that a lightly impressed stamp, on the reverse side of patterned paper, may not be visible in a blurry photo. In the one blurry photo out of nine FactCheck photos, the seal isn't visible. It's that simple. Running a photo through color filters doesn't unblur it.
- Naturally, once again, Steve says I "misrepresent the facts, and that he's caught me in "lies, fraud, and deciet." And once again, he totally fails to identify a single actual lie or fraudulent statement.