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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (19889)	12/14/2003 6:53:17 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

Which "interesting", er, approach to labeling "facts" and "distortions" are you speaking about? Are you speaking about my accurate paraphrasing of an article that quoted a memo verbatim? Please, er, explain it to me. I'm sure it will be "interesting" debating it with you. Start here........ Message 19596006

To: Lane3 who wrote (19889)	12/14/2003 7:01:23 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793622

...."he introduced the cynic, who thought it strictly about WMD.".... Yes, I adequately refuted that point a while back in this post...... Message 19587367 Here's the key rebuttal so you won't have to read the whole discussion...... You said....... "The author is framing an argument--posing the position of a cynic. " I said...... However, Friedman was more than framing an argument. It was a critical aspect of his hypothesis, without which the hypothesis falls apart. His very next comment is clear evidence of this..... "But with no such weapons having been unearthed thus far in Iraq, and with the costs of the war in lives and dollars soaring, he felt he needed a new rationale." Friedman was clever to not make the distorted claim himself, but it became a critical element in his faulty hypothesis. It's painfully obvious IMO it falls apart without this obvious distortion...... ........ So what exactly was so, er "interesting" about my approach to labeling this obvious "distortion"? BTW, did you notice Friedman offers no qualifier or even mentions this "cynic" is wrong in his/her perception of reality? He's simply a "cynic".