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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (9212)	1/6/2002 2:06:57 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Time to call it a Sunday. Cheerio!

To: Neocon who wrote (9212)	1/6/2002 2:40:40 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

We seem to talking at cross purposes, since I find most of your post non- responsive. There is either some confusion between us, or you are not engaging the actual argument. And I find your post to be insistently non-responsive.<s> Alternatively, perhaps you are not engaging the actual argument [whatever that may be at this moment]. The sampling analogy has no bearing, since the cause of the heightened confidence is a matter of interpretation. You interpret it as partisanship. It's certainly a matter of interpretation; I've interpreted it that way as does Gallup. The data is consistent with that interpretation; it's a reasonable and logical interpretation to make. There are no inconsistencies or conflicts with that interpretation. I gave an example of having one's view of an organization affected by a single episode that was non- partisan, preliminary (as I anticipated the exchange) to arguing that the uptick in Republican confidence was not per se partisan. And I've made the point that there is no basis for extending that case to the general analysis. The surprise of the legal team over Scalia has no bearing. It does have bearing in the sense that the legal team had significant doubts on the strength of the argument. The rest of your statement [not requoted here] is just a repeat with more specifity to the claim. Since you argued with me over my opinion in the Skokie case, although dismissively, in order to claim it was merely emotional, it did behoove you, in fact, to address my actual reasoning, which you failed to do. Here we have a major disconnect. I didn't argue over your opinion in Skokie at all. [In fact, I happen to be quite sympathetic to your argument. I wish the Court had ruled differently.]. What I was arguing over was how your opinion formed. How much of it was logically based and how much was emotional. I was suggesting that you had an opinion of the ACLU based on many cases and your overall confidence in the ACLU changed because of this one case and that one case was also settled in favor of the ACLU by a majority of the Court. That suggests quite strongly that some component of your opinion on the ACLU was emotional. It may not even be a conscious factor. It says you're a human being. In short, I didn't address your reasoning because I wasn't arguing with it to begin with and was in pretty much agreement with your opinion. But it still doesn't extend to the general sampling. Maybe this will be clarifying. I fear not...... At least we're stumbling over some disconnects...whether that's clarifying or not is an unknown. Aside: I don't know if you picked up on the beginning of the whole poll analysis thing to begin with. I thought that the whole poll was pretty useless. The first level cut showed that there was no overall change...pretty boring, IMO. The second level cut, showed that politics [what I think we're truly arguing]is partisan. Not a very exciting take-away from the poll. You may very well outlast me on this one. How many more ergs of energy is this debate worth? jttmab