Hi Neocon; Re: "Since she complained about us not pursuing the Kyoto Accords, even though they were "signed", the implication was definitely there."
Under normal conditions, I'd take you at your word in this, but you already misled me in your earlier version of what zonder wrote: "The whole thing started because zonder insinuated that we repudiated contractual obligations by setting aside "treaties we had signed". In that context, it was denied that they were "signed", in the sense that a contract would be, i.e., placing us under obligation. Since we are not bound without ratification, there can be no violation in setting aside unratified treaties. Therefore, the initial confusing arose because of zonder's accusatory use of the word "signed". #reply-18330101
After reading the above, I wrote a post agreeing with you, but when I went to extract the post by zonder showing her to be in error, I was unable to find it. So I wrote this post instead: #reply-18330187 which you replied to admitting your error here: "You are correct, zonder never strictly misused the terms. I should not have used quotes." #reply-18330451
At this point, you have obtained my admiration for publicly admitting that you were in error. This is head and shoulders above the typical SI denizen. But I'm still not at a position where I completely trust the things that you say, particularly when you quote zonder without giving links, LOL. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but when I find that a data source is faulty, I won't use it without ECC. And I absolutely can't stand it when people, deliberately or accidentally, feed me bad data.
So the question is did zonder really do what you now say she did? I look around, but I can't find any such post, at least on the FADG thread in the past two weeks. If you're referring to a post from before then, well good for you, but I would suggest that you provide links when you're referring to ancient history that those of us without photographic memories have long forgotten, and you should take our weak memories into consideration.
But hey, maybe she did, on the FADG thread, in the past 2 weeks, claim that the US had an obligation to pursue the Kyoto Accords. Tell you what. Prove you're right. Link such a post in, in the next 24 hours, and I'll quit posting on the FADG thread for 14 days. Alternatively, admit that it's a figment of your imagination and apologize to the lady.
Here's some good places to start looking:
zonder's profile shows posts back to December 11:
Member 9064351
A search of FADG for "kyoto" goes back to September 14, 2002:
siliconinvestor.com
You can also look back through the FADG history for zonder posts and read them here:
Subject 51724
-- Carl |
