SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill Grant who wrote (24132)12/22/1998 10:12:00 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
and the first time it is... Re special prosecuter law

It's my fault, I confess I am not a good teacher. After all these lessons you turned out a dreadful attack piece.

First of all you are ambiguous. The primary declarative of my statement was I will not grieve if the special prosecutor law is repealed. . Your attack had no reference to the secondary declarative If it is instead modified... and yet that was the main purpose. It makes it look as if you are attacking my modest admission that the law is not good. Unless I miss my mark that is not at all the statement which was in your sights.

Then comes the against your guy/gal(this should piss off somebody) statement. While I can see the effort to inflame my passions and therefore cloud my judgement the annotation this should piss off somebody telegraphs the move. While it does make me defensive and there is an appropriate degree of ambiguity guy/gal so that I won't be able to anticipate the final assault, it's impact was lost since I was still mentally resolving the first ambiguity (which part of my statement you were attacking).

The middle attack, the stuff about say it took too long etc is quite a weak one since I had not proposed any values to the limits. I also didn't specify who I thought would have the authority to make an official complaint. (Surely the you did not imply that I would be the one to decide the tenure of any prosecutor). You should have asked for more detail and then attacked that.

Finally the ending. How about doing a cost/benefit analysis on His Liarship's "Wag the Dog" this past week.. You did pack a whole lot of inflamatory statments in one sentence. Let's see we have money (a good way to label all Democrats as spending too much, but then again this was money for the military so you have to be careful). Then you added in Liar it's good to stay focused and you did it very concisely. And 'Wag the Dog" is a nice cultural reference to denigrate the action in Iraq. All together the ending was a reasonable diversion from the main body.

I suppose it could be considered a weak attempt to divert the argument to the Iraq battle, but all in all it was not effective.
TP
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News