I suggest you turn your attention to Mr. Zywicki’s original post, which still contains uncorrected factual misstatements (that I’ve pointed out to him in e-mail and in this post).

You fired too fast and were wrong. Leave it there instead of saying “I fired too fast and got it wrong, but it was a circumstance in which I might have been right and, if you really parse it carefully, I could be half-right after all.”

I made it crystal clear in my original post that it was a “They said that he said” situation. If, based on your skepticism of “advocacy groups,” you wish to discount the reliability of the statement, that’s your choice as the reader.

So a dubious reader could choose to remain dubious. But one attempting to assert, as you did, that the quote is “bogus” (meaning “made up,” with no “maybe” present in your original post’s title) is assuming the burden of proof when he makes that assertion. If you don’t have the proof, you’re the one being irresponsible, at least in the title, not the person who relayed the comment and clearly indicated its source.

That said, I mischaracterized the quote by assuming it was from a lawyer for the M37 opposition, instead of another lawyer, and, based on another e-mail from Mr. Myers, I have clarified that matter at the original post:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=671

This is part of the “self-correction” built into the blogosphere that the mainstream media all too often blows off. So I appreciate your raising the issue, and your indirect contribution to my post’s accuracy, and to helping me and my readers get closer to the truth, which is what I hope we are all pursuing.

Maybe I’m still asleep, but what factual errors? You made the perfectly reasonable observation that the process by which the quote was obtained, was unreliable. The process was unreliable. If we relied on that process for source information, we’d be wrong as often as right. So I don’t think you made any factual errors, and the criticisms of your original post remain valid.