Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS

[greiner3]

128. " I believe hack89 is an insightful critical thinker"

I have to disagree with you assessment of the definition of critical thinking (CT) then. From Wiki;

"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true. The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic method of Ancient Greece and in the East, to the Buddhist kalama sutta and Abhidharma. Critical thinking is an important component of most professions. It is a part of the education process and is increasingly significant as students progress through university to graduate education, although there is debate among educators about its precise meaning and scope."

You may know of posts where Hack89 does engage in this process according to the above definition. However, I have reread the posts he/she made here and I find them lacking in CT.

Here is one of his posts;

62. "So you are categorically saying the story is false?

ok - I understand your reluctance to dig too deep."

Here he is commenting on a post by nadinbrzezinski (59) where she is saying not to take Murdock's take on the news too seriously. Hack89's response is to attack the messenger and question their analytical skills. Another post;

60. "So should OWS actively oppose the reelection of President Obama?

are those of us that support Democrats and their campaigns the enemy of OWS?"

This again is in response to Zhade (58) where the poster comments on the reasons why OWS is not party specific and lays out reasons what OWS is about. hack89's response is to change the subject and begin the attack anew against OWS with charges that OWS is now heading the charge against reelecting the president. And yet another post;

20. "I am willing to wait until you have some actual facts. Take all the time you need. nt"

This is in response to Spazito (17). hack89 is trying to get his detractors to do the fact checking even though several posts have already done this and given links. There have been no media mention to this case EXCEPT for Murdock owned media and the usual Conservative lapdog boards-freepers, etc... obamanut2012 replies downstream,

106. "You cannot prove a negative.

The onus is on the "accuser," which is you, to provide a source that isn't Murdoch. I can't find it anywhere else."

There are many more posts by hack89 to this OP that fit MY CT analysis why I believe your assessment of the poster is a fail.

You post later in the thread;

97. "My enemies I fight. My friends I criticize."

If this critique of mine makes me your enemy then so be it.