You were warned by a number of people? My goodness, dougjn, you were warned what? Not to discuss the issue? If that is your effort at trying to intimidate, then I must tell you it is a truly pathetic display.
As far as my concluding you are uninformed. Correct me then, did you read the entire report and the presidential response? Did you watch the entire GJ testimony? I venture to guess that most people have not. And you like all others are entitled to an opinion based on limited knowledge if you so choose. I daresay most everybody posting here had drawn (myself included) certain presumptive conclusions based upon the limited knowledge we were given access to as this thing continued to unwind. I am simply saying that if you are going to make factual distinctions at the very least consider all the available evidence. When one persists in an unwillingness to avail themselves to all the necessary documented facts, then I'm sorry, it does appear as though a "position" is being protected.
I have said repeatedly to you that reasonable people can draw differing conclusions after reviewing the evidence. I'm only saying that until the participants in the discussion are at the minimum willing to delve into the substance of relevant argument, we can't even have a reasoned conversation. As a lawyer you should at least be willing to stipulate to certain facts, if you haven't seen the evidence, obviously, there's no stipulation to anything and the argument disintegrates into nothing more than each person voicing their own subjective beliefs. I think that's where we're having our conflict. I don't think anyone wants to waste their time trying to "convert" the other persons subjective opinions.
So, in brief<g>, I have no problem with as you say "well reasoned and challenging views". But that of course assumes the obvious. In order to make a well reasoned argument the assumption is that both parties have considered the same evidence. As a lawyer, you wouldn't expect a panel of judges to render opinions without each considering the same evidence, would you? At any rate, I think this conversation has been beat to death and it's much more of a personal disagreement, so I go back to my request in my previous post and suggest we terminate this particular conversation. It doesn't do anything to advance the general topic of discussion.
bp |
