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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (149193)	8/7/2002 3:15:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577903

When you say "the Republicans are the party of the rich", or when Ray says that there is a order of magnitude of difference between the corruption in the Democratic party and the corruption that exists in the Republican party, then it is harder to prove anyone wrong. This is a fair criticism; however, if I make such an unprovable remark it is done in a rhetorical context and not intended to be a supported remark. It has been suggested that I don't back up my statements. I do sometimes make rhetorical remarks without backing them up; but I defy you or anyone else on this thread to show where I have made statements without significant support. I have stated numerous unpopular opinions here (for example, that Bubba's conduct amounted to "sexual assault" of a near-teenager); but these are opinions that have some basis in fact. Ted, on the other hand, commonly makes statements with no support whatsoever. I reject the notion that my arguments are in that category.

To: TimF who wrote (149193)	8/7/2002 3:28:16 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577903

Ted - Re: Refusing to admit I am wrong. I can admit that I was wrong, but I usually wait until someone shows me that I am wrong. This is easier to do on matters of specific facts. For example if I said Clinton signed a certain bill in his first term, but you insisted that it was in his second and then later you linked to facts that support your case. Its much harder when you deal with bigger more general issues. When you say "the Republicans are the party of the rich", or when Ray says that there is a order of magnitude of difference between the corruption in the Democratic party and the corruption that exists in the Republican party, then it is harder to prove anyone wrong. Different people have different opinions on what "the party of the rich" would mean or what qualifies as corruption. Also even if we agree on the definitions in these areas, the facts are complex, many of them are disputed, and quite a few of them are unknown. You can create strong arguments that are buttressed by facts or logic to try and support your case when you deal with arguments like this, but you usually can't prove the other guy wrong, or be proven wrong yourself. Tim, I understand that disagreement can stem from differing opinions [although at times, opinion on this thread is stated as fact] but again I go back to my example re who paid for the Gore recount. There were facts that disputed the contention that had been made, and yet those facts were discounted out of hand. So, while your post is correct, it does not deal with the issue that I was raising. ted