Isn't the Truth Important In Presenting Your Arguement?

If you read the blogs you saw an email posted as my response to  a request for debates from Craig Gernhardt.  His initial email was in response to a post I made here about the possibility of more challenging debate formats.  Here is his original message.

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Gernhardt
To: "Loraine Swanson" ; "Hugh J. Devlin"  "Ben Jerovsky(?)" "Chris Adams" "Joe Moore" "David Fagus" "Toni Duncan" "Donald Gordon"

Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:56 AM
Subject: Debates

> David, You brought up a excellent idea on your blog today.
>
> http://49thward.blogs.com/49/2007/03/its_a_runoff_on.html
>
> If you are all in agreement, Toni Duncan and I will host a 'bloggers
> debate' with 6 to eight questions from our readers. Let a moderator decide
> which three each to ask.
>
> Questions will be read by a independent moderator of both candidates
> choosing.  As debates go, each candidate can challenge the others claim
> with rebuttal.
>
> Toni and I would like to see the debate North of Howard at Gale School.
>
> None of this same ole, same ole, let's get serious with community issues,
> community questions, not those set-up
> --
>
> Thanks in advance
> Craig Gernhardt

I edited out the email addresses since some of these folks are private individuals and may not want their email publicly posted.  This was what Craig claims I wrote back to him on his blog.

Craig,

My initial reaction is that while you may have a candidate you support, you have not been actively out campaigning for them. 

I also doubt that Joe would consider you impartial. A broader panel might work, but bloggers in 49 and the News Star reporter tend to disproportionally range from anti-Joe to very anti-Joe. Some of them may dispute this, but it would be hard to tell. Who could be added to make it more balanced? I am also speaking for myself here, not Joe. He probably hasn't even seen what I wrote today.

David Fagus

This is what I actually wrote:

Craig,

My initial reaction is that while you may have a candidate you support, you
have not been actively out campaigning for them.  On the other hand, Toni
has been actively out supporting someone, (Don).  Where would the balance
be?

I also doubt that Joe would consider you impartial.  A broader panel might
work, but bloggers in 49 and the News Star reporter tend to disproportionately
range from anti-Joe to very anti-Joe.  Some of them may dispute this, but it
would be hard to tell.  Who could be added to make it more balanced?

I am also speaking for myself here, not Joe.  He probably hasn't even seen
what I wrote today.

David

Since that time Craig has taken to posting a Gordon sign in his window so even he now is very out there for one of the candidates.  No matter who you are supporting the basic principle of a debate is that the debate is not biased and that the moderator and the people formulating the questions are not actively supporting one of the candidates.

If you have even the slightest amount of common sense how could you think that this debate idea as Craig suggests it be formated is somehow a fair and reasonable suggestion? 

And as for the reprinting of my email, in a significantly edited format, you now have a flavor of Craig's commitment to accuracy.