Bill Ayers admits he wrote "Dreams From My Father"

[kookbreaker]

Well my opinion is that Cashill has presented credible evidence.

That, and $5 will get you a $2 cup of coffee.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did Ayers say it wasn't?

Then it seems to me I can use the same logic you've been using to claim Dreams was written by Obama. There's no proof it's not a joke.

 

[mysteronyx]

Then it seems to me I can use the same logic you've been using to claim Dreams was written by Obama. There's no proof it's not a joke.

I didn't claim that Obama wrote the book. You claimed he didn't, to which we've been saying that that has nothing to do with your OP.

You may have no actual proof that it was a joke. However, it doesn't follow from there that he admitted to writing the book. This is where you need to find sound evidence that he wasn't joking. You've been trying to provide evidence for him writing the book in order to substantiate the claim that he was being serious; however, you actually need to find evidence for his typical sense of humor clashing with this event. If you could prove that this instance of deadpanning is a dramatic change from his typical style of humor, then there may be something to your original claim that he was admitting to writing the book.

Of course, even if he was trying to tell his audience that he actually wrote it, he could be lying. That is where you create a new thread where you present the evidence for him having written the book.

So, I recommend staying on topic here and creating a new topic for all of the other stuff you've been posting.

 

[kookbreaker]

Then it seems to me I can use the same logic you've been using to claim Dreams was written by Obama. There's no proof it's not a joke.

Trying the False Equivalency Fallacy won't help you.

 

[NotJesus]

Well my opinion is that Cashill has presented credible evidence. I suspect you haven't actually bothered to read anything he presented, citing his evidence. I suspect you merely dismissed it out of hand due to your fervent *hope* that Obama wrote Dreams. And I suspect nothing would *change* your dismissal.

Mind-reading fail. Again. I recall reading Cashill's first piece on the subject when he first came up with the idea. I thought it was silly. Rereading some of his stuff since this thread began, I still find it silly.

By the way, ANTPogo has already pointed out that one of the analysts Cashill consulted, told him that it wasn't possible to establish Ayers as the author with any degree of relability. Cashill actually quoted that comment but seems to have ignored the implications.

And why would I fervently hope that Obama wrote the book? I don't really give a crap if he used a ghostwriter. But if you want me to believe it's Ayers, you need to show me some real evidence.

Who are Ayers' friends? Besides Obama and Friends Of Obama? And that being the case, who do you think those friends now want to make sure they stay on the good side of? The man with the power or the man without it?

You don't sound like a conspiracy theorist at all. Nope.

That's your opinion. I find the many similarities pointed out between Ayers' books and Dreams rather convincing.

That's nice.

Especially when the book that we know Obama did write, Audacity, is so very different from Dreams. As the evidence that Cashill presented clearly proves.

And hey, there's no way the same guy could write two totally different books. What is he, Superman?

Hey ... here's a thought ... maybe the teleprompter wrote Dreams?

You still don't have this joking thing down.

 

[Thunder]

Did Ayers say it was a joke?

please.....please just stop.

you're making anti-Obama haters look absolutely ridiculous.

 

[BeAChooser]

I didn't claim that Obama wrote the book.

Well of course you haven't been doing that. Your interest in this thread is merely to make sure all statements are 100% accurate.

 

[LukeB]

funny, of all the times my friends told jokes, none of them had to tell me that it was a joke

Maybe you're not an idiot? Alas the same cannot be said for some people....

 

[Alan]

I admit it. I wrote Dreams From My Father. It's just Lord of the Rings with the names changed.

 

[mysteronyx]

Well of course you haven't been doing that. Your interest in this thread is merely to make sure all statements are 100% accurate.

nah, I was just joking.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well of course you haven't been doing that. Your interest in this thread is merely to make sure all statements are 100% accurate.

Tell me BAC, do you still pretend to not be a Birther?

 

[BeAChooser]

I recall reading Cashill's first piece on the subject when he first came up with the idea. I thought it was silly. Rereading some of his stuff since this thread began, I still find it silly.

Your opinion that something is "silly" is not the same as it being false or inconceivable. That's merely your opinion, colored by your own political views, likes, dislikes and agenda. If you really want to prove Cashill wrong, then why don't you take each piece of evidence that he offers and dispute it with facts and sound logic … rather than merely dismissing it out of hand (as I suggested you did) as "silly"?

By the way, ANTPogo has already pointed out that one of the analysts Cashill consulted, told him that it wasn't possible to establish Ayers as the author with any degree of relability. Cashill actually quoted that comment but seems to have ignored the implications.

You have it wrong. What ANTPogo said was that an analyst quoted by Cashill "essentially" said "we can't really analyze stuff like that with any reliable degree of accuracy". ANTPogo wasn't actually quoting the analyst, just adding his own interpretation. What the analyst actually is quoted by Cashill saying is that "[t]he best-performing methods we know about can get 90-plus percent accuracy, but can also get 50 percent or less (and we don't yet understand the conditions that cause that to happen), which means that for high stakes issues (such as national politics), the repercussions of a technical error could be a disaster (in either direction)." That's not the same thing as saying the methods have no value. And when multiple methods all point to the same conclusion, then perhaps there is more reliability in what each of them is saying.

Also, you are wrong that Cashill ignored the implications of what that expert said. In fact, he stated in that same article that the expert said to him "A better approach is simply to do what you're already doing (as far as I can tell from the columns you were so kind as to send) – good old-fashioned literary detective work." So clearly Cashill was cognizant of the implications.

And by the way, why are YOU ignoring the implications of 4 (now 5) different researchers all reaching the same conclusion … that Ayers was involved in the creation of the Dreams book? Why are you ignoring Cashill's evidence that 8 distinct lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion?

Tell you what … why don't you go through each of the pieces of evidence summarized in the following source and show us why Cashill is wrong?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392

Go ahead, demonstrate to us that you understand the *implications*.

I don't really give a crap if he used a ghostwriter.

Meaning that if he did, you wouldn't care? You wouldn't care that he lied and that his whole mystic is built on a lie? Hmmmmmmm.

You don't sound like a conspiracy theorist at all. Nope.

You don't sound like a Obama Wrote Dreams, Truther. Nope.

And hey, there's no way the same guy could write two totally different books.

But the odds are they wouldn't be so dissimilar. That's what the experts say.

You still don't have this joking thing down.

I'm trying, but like I said at the beginning, I don't find a President who lies about his past and accomplishments, and who has strong associations with a communist and terrorist all that funny.

 

[joobz]

I'm trying, but like I said at the beginning, I don't find a President who lies about his past and accomplishments, and who has strong associations with a communist and terrorist all that funny.

Great point. The moment we have a president who fits that description, you'll be ready.

 

[BeAChooser]

The moment we have a president who fits that description, you'll be ready.

Denial is a river flowing through JREF these days.

 

[joobz]

Denial is a river flowing through JREF these days.

Again, I agree. If only you can see yourself.

 

[Thunder]

Denial is a river flowing through JREF these days.

let us know when like under George W. Bush, the stock market crashes 50% under Obama.

 

[NotJesus]

You have it wrong. What ANTPogo said was that an analyst quoted by Cashill "essentially" said "we can't really analyze stuff like that with any reliable degree of accuracy". ANTPogo wasn't actually quoting the analyst, just adding his own interpretation. What the analyst actually is quoted by Cashill saying is that "[t]he best-performing methods we know about can get 90-plus percent accuracy, but can also get 50 percent or less (and we don't yet understand the conditions that cause that to happen), which means that for high stakes issues (such as national politics), the repercussions of a technical error could be a disaster (in either direction)." That's not the same thing as saying the methods have no value.

A distinction without a difference. If the best method sometime yields 90% plus accuracy, and sometimes less than 50%, and no one knows why, then it does not, "analyze stuff like that with any reliable degree of accuracy."

 

[BeAChooser]

A distinction without a difference. If the best method sometime yields 90% plus accuracy, and sometimes less than 50%, and no one knows why, then it does not, "analyze stuff like that with any reliable degree of accuracy."

Then I assume you feel the same way about Global Warming calculations. They are all over the map. They use a consensus approach, believing that even though there are huge differences from one to another, the fact that they all sort of say the same thing must be significant. Again, it's not just one method that is pointing to fraud in the claim that Obama alone wrote Dreams. It's 5 different analyses and 8 distinct approaches. So I again challenge you to address the specific evidence listed in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392 rather than just waving your hands in dismissal based on your mischaracterization of what ANTPogo said. You can do that, can't you?

 

[timhau]

Did Ayers say it was a joke?

If Ayers said it was a joke, would you conclude that you were wrong and that he didn't write Obama's memoirs?

 

[NotJesus]

[irrelevant global warming crap snipped]Again, it's not just one method that is pointing to fraud in the claim that Obama alone wrote Dreams. It's 5 different analyses and 8 distinct approaches.

And none of them amounts to much. In one section he makes much of the resemblances between one sentence from each book, then a 30-sentence segment from each. How were these chosen? Cherry-pick much? Doesn't say.

Elsewhere he suggest that "ballast" is some sort of super-rare nautical term that only an experienced seaman would use. Ridiculous.

So I again challenge you to address the specific evidence listed in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392 rather than just waving your hands in dismissal based on your mischaracterization of what ANTPogo said. You can do that, can't you?

Can do, but won't. Others can read it and decide for themselves if they care to. You won't be swayed by anything I say since, for you, the right-wing blogosphere is the source of all truth and reason. I decline to grant you the right to set me homework assignments.

You are now free crow that I'm dodging the issue. I'm sure your usual audience of imaginary lurkers will be impressed.