The numbers issue has nothing to do with it, and is not unfair, imo. I'm here because it's fun, and can leave when the time it takes outweighs the fun. (It may be a bit unfair if I am taken to task for posting more, as an individual, than those who are answering only one person; but that's only happened a couple of times.)
It would help me to understand whether you truly think that what brees wrote was 'accurate,' in fact, not to mention honest, if you replied to the three questions that follow this scenario. I note that Bill has been honest enough to answer No, No, and No, though thinking it okay to do what the blonde did in a chat room, and that so far (at least as far as i've read) no one else on your side has been willing to answer the questions: (It may be helpful because we all agree about Condit's nature, while we don't about X's.)
I know you're making a joke about what brees did (Thanks, I enjoyed it!), but when a post-game talking head, some blond i've seen before, actually said Condit had done that, I was amazed. I wonder if she had gotten the idea from this board or from someone who reads this board and been persuaded that enough people who didn't see the interview would believe it to make it worthwhile saying. She didn't use 'distaste,' or 'repeatedly,' she used 'mention,'dislike of,' and 'truth.' I know Condit is a liar, but that astonished me as much as what brees said did. I almost fell off the bed! The moderator didn't let it pass unchallenged, and the woman who said it had no defenders (nobody said 'fair comment,' for example) and she immediately retracted. I was relieved to see that-- it reminded me there are sane people out there. I wonder if there is anyone here who thinks the retraction was proper, or do you all take the 'extrapolation' and 'conclusion' case you take here and feel the talking head's tossed-in remark, "Condit kept mentioning his dislike of the truth..." should have been allowed to stand unchallenged, and if it was challenged, been defended by Condit's critics?
1) Was she right to say that?
2) Was the moderator wrong to challenge the conclusion she had drawn and presented as an attribution?
3) Were the allies of the speaker wrong not to defend her statement as 'fair comment,' and 'conclusion' based on 'extrapolation'? |
