To: jlallen who wrote (17837 ) 7/19/2002 12:49:01 PM From: Lane3 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057 You're splitting hairs.... I guess in a way I am. We have a continuum of possible conclusions to draw from the available evidence. On one end we have the possibility that Bush is certifiably as pure as the driven snow. This is the white pole. On the other end we have him getting away with a misdeed. This is the black pole. Both poles of that continuum and everything in between are theoretically possible. People will decide what they believe happened based on how they interpret the evidence. Steve thinks it's most likely that he got away with something. Bill believes in the snow. Either one of them could be right. We don't have any way to know for sure. Steve sees the continuum but easily dismisses the plausibility of the snow end of it, which is his prerogative. Bill, OTOH, doesn't seem to recognize the existence of the continuum. All he sees is the extreme white pole. What you are calling "splitting hairs" has a purpose. I'm trying to split a hair off that pole to try to illustrate to him the existence of the whole continuum. If he can see the difference between his pole, that the SEC certified Bush innocent, and the next hair on the continuum, which is a presumption of innocence in light of the absence of evidence of guilt, maybe he can recognize the whole continuum. I'm not splitting hairs to be picky but to get him to see an inch beyond his pole. It's one thing for him to believe in the white pole. That is his prerogative. But to not recognize the existence of the rest of the continuum? You believe in the white pole, too, but you seem to know that other options are out there, however implausible or demolibpinheaded or mean spirited or just plain wrong you think they may be. So I'm splitting hairs to try to expose the invisible continuum. It apparently ain't working.