Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (24642)	8/24/2001 8:04:01 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

They are different scenarios. I was asking if you would be as forthright and brave as only one person on the thread has been (and he survived it nicely, and looking good) and simply read that scenario and answer the questions associated only with it. Sometimes such an exercise clarifies where differences between parties lie, and can even reveal that there are some similarities of values one didn't realize existed. So would you take a moment and tell me how you would answer these three questions in this scenario, which is not the same as brees'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'?