Biasbuster busts Nathan

Nathan wrote on his blog:

I notice I haven't heard directly from my detractors. It's easy to hide behind a wall and shout nasty names. But it takes great moral character to stand up and publicly announce your beliefs.

That’s because Nathan lied when he said that their e-mail address will not be published. He sandbagged a commenter and no one has been so foolish as to deal with Nathan since.

While I am diametrically opposed to the positions taken by Elizabeth Prata, I believe her actions have fomented the continued devisiveness and nastiness in Gray.

What “positions"? Please state her 'positions.'

The only public positions she takes is for the citizens, for good government, and for ethical journalism. It’s not news that Nathan is opposed to that.

Nathan should produce examples of this divisiveness-fomenting. Meanwhile here areother examples from Nathan: Nathan and Paul’s recall fomented the negativity. Nathan and Paul's hate mail to Upham supporters fomented negativity. Nathan lying in the Gray News fomented the nastiness (Upham opposes) His hate blog fomented the nastiness (bwg.blogspot.com). His lying statements in his editorials and blogspot fomented the nastiness (“Prata and Foster in inappropriate relationship” “Prata may be a drug user” etc.) fomented plenty of nastiness and disgust.

And by the way, it’s divisiveness.