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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38023)	4/5/2004 4:18:36 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

A mistake, in my opinion, to allow Rice to testify not simply because Bush has every right to insist on executive privilege, but also because there are good practical reasons for keeping her off the stand. No one's recollection is perfect. The Commissioners will be armed with a lot information that they will analyze for inconsistencies to her previous statements and her testimony at the hearing. She will be one Magnificent Brain battling a slew of Magnificent Brains who have done nothing in the last few days but prepare for the hearing on Thursday. The press will be circling like sharks, waiting to exaggerate the tiniest slip-up. If she makes none, which is highly unlikely, the media will assail her partisanship. It's a lose/lose for the Administration, a decision I think Bush will regret.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38023)	4/5/2004 4:55:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

I thought this was an interesting op-ed on the unreliability of memory That was interesting. Thanks for posting it. I posted just the other day to KLP regarding how I came to attribute to her comments on the assassination meeting, when actually she had commented on the asses of evil button. I get so upset at the way people hereabouts throw the word, liar, around. I won't use that word unless I have good reason to believe that the misinformation was deliberately deceptive. The result of that is that I almost never accuse anyone of a lie. It's just too easy to misremember in good faith, or at least not in bad faith.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38023)	4/5/2004 10:22:01 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793955

Re: the article and the unreliability of memory: >>>>>>>>Misattribution errors can occur for traumatic experiences,<<<<<<<<<< 9-11 is one of the few days imposed on most American brains that can be defined as a mass traumatic experience, I would think. Nov 22, 1963 is another, as is Dec 7, 1941 another. If we were more than 6 years old for any of those events, I would think that most of us could remember a good deal of most of the specific day in question. Most of us could probably testify to the 9-11 Commission as to what we were doing on that specific day with accuracy. That is, unless we were not telling the truth about a part of the day....It would then become a matter of making all the loose pieces fit together (i.e. an interview given in August 2002, versus what happened 9-11-01, versus making the book rememberances match the actual events of the day...especially when other people were involved and can testify as well.