Hartalmsm - a watchdog on mainstream media and blogs?

From hartalmsm.wordpress.com:

You can never win with a bigot – my response to “OutSyed the Box: Is The DAP A Chauvinist Party?” «

(Excerpts):
Bigotry is spreading fast in our blogosphere, on both sides of the political divide; I believe that SAA’s blog entry of 31 July 2009 is but one example of it. The purpose of the post in question seems to be to imply that the DAP is chauvinist, anti-Malay and anti-Islam.
Let’s look at some of the things SAA wrote, beginning with this about Lim Guan Eng (LGE): “Lim Guan Eng made a public display of standing up for a young Malay girl because the fellow involved was Rahim Tamby Chik, Guan Eng’s nemesis in Melaka at that time. Would Lim Guan Eng have made the same stand if it was not Rahim Tamby Chik? What if it was Chua Soi Lek?” So, according to SAA, if someone like LGE speaks up for a Malay girl, he/she is only motivated by political and/or racial motivations, never by principle or more nobler aims.
Yet, five paragraphs later, he is taking Theresa Kok to task for (supposedly) doing the exact opposite: NOT speaking up for a Malay girl! He writes: “Then it came to pass that the girl was not Chinese but actually a Malay girl, also wearing a tudung, who was a suspected drug addict. Not surprisingly that also marked the end of Theresa Kok’s involvement in the matter. She dropped the case like a hot potato.“
Doesn’t it seem like whatever a DAP politician says or does, SAA can find a way construe it to imply that they are opportunist, racist and/or worse? How convenient!
Let’s look at another example of SAA’s logic. Of LGE’s conviction for sedition over the case allegedly involving Rahim Tamby Chik, he wrote: “By the way none of his lawyers (or even DAP) spoke of conspiracy, crooked judges etc after the verdict. Does anyone know the name of the judge who jailed Guan Eng? Crooked judge? How come DAP never said so?” He seems to be implying that LGE, his party and his lawyers have implicitly admitted his guilt because they (supposedly) did not dispute the judges verdict. Yet, in his post “The Solution To The Perak Crisis” of 12 May 2009, SAA criticised Perak PR leaders for disputing court decisions that were unfavourable to them!
There’s just no way to win with Tuan Syed, is there? We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t! Would it be in any way unreasonable to suspect that SAA would have found a way to criticise LGE, even if he (LGE) had disputed his conviction?
SAA’s arguments that I’ve described above, are all based on just one of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments, namely no. 38: attributing prejudice or motives to opponents, without any evidence in support. That’s easy to do, but by neglecting to go beyond smear tactics, such an argument does not consider the action or argument on its own merits. It also ignores the various possible real reasons a person acts or speaks in a particular way.

Link