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: tejek who wrote (186111)	4/5/2004 9:01:05 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573901

Ted, re: I can't say he said that Iraq's WMDs would "blow up" American cities but in a very general way, he did say they presented a danger to this country and its cities. I didn't think it was general, I thought it was specific. Only those in political denial would suggest that he didn't imply that we were in danger from Iraq, and that we had to move NOW. Almost all Republicans admit that. John

To: tejek who wrote (186111)	4/5/2004 9:23:42 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573901

spinsanity.org This article is a pretty balanced overview of the "imminent threat"/"no imminent threat" issue that you folks seem to be rehashing. Notice how the expression "imminent threat" arose from concepts of international law. There was also a lot of discussion in the months before the Iraq resolution concerning the international law meaning of "imminent threat".

To: tejek who wrote (186111)	4/20/2004 7:04:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573901

You've succeeded only by playing the word game again. Your the one playing the word game again. A false statements was made, you make a different statement that has a different meaning and imply that you have successfully defended the false statement. I don't care about the words but rather the meaning of the statement. If the meaning it true then the exact words really don't matter much, but the meaning of the statement that I contested (and you supported at least indirectly) is false. By replacing "clear and present danger" with "blowing up American cities", you've added a level of specificity that can be contested. I didn't replace "clear and present danger" with "blowing up American cities", nor did I initiate the statement about "blowing up American cities". The discussion was about a statement concerning "blowing up American cities". You are the one who made the replacement to "clear and present danger". Your changing the subject, which is fine as long as you stop pretending that you are not. For an example............Joe went to the store. Did Joe go to the store? Did Joe drive to the store? Did Joe walk to the store? Did Joe bike to the store? These are all varying levels of specificity for which I can answer yes only to the first one based on the amount of info I have been provided. Does the meaning change dramatically among the 4 questions? No, of course not. But it does change enough so that you can't answer the next three questions affirmatively. Its an issue that pollsters have to watch very closely. That's a false analogy. The meaning did change when YOU changed "blowing up American cities" to "clear and present danger". I didn't change the general to something specific, the specific statement was made and refuted, then you changed it to a more general statement in order to attack the refutation. To use your examples its the equivalent of someone claiming that Joe biked to the store, and then I refute the claim by saying "that's not true I saw Joe drive to the store", and then you accuse me of word games because Joe did go to the store. Your replacing of the specific with the general is the actual word game here. If we can get past that issue and you want to discuss the general that's fine but it seems you'd rather blast me for word games. Your required level of specificity is unnecessary. Only someone with an axe to grind, or one who is highly partisan would be a stickler for the greater specificity. I didn't introduce the specificity. A specific (and false) statement was made that I refuted. If you replied with something like "yes that specific statement was false, but what was true was... and this truth is more important because..." then we could have saved a lot of time but it seems you would rather attack even if you logically have no ground to stand on. It may be because you are highly anti-Bush to the extent that you can't accept any accusation against him as false. Since you don't consider that to be partisan I won't call it that but whatever it is called it does get in the way of having a solid exchange of thoughts and ideas. Tim