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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (45131)	5/5/2004 3:50:46 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Laz's grammer not very good, but the meaning can be discerned. <font color=brown>The fact that some crimes were committed by some American soldiers is neither an indictment of the present administration or of its army or of this nation.</font> It's an intermediately complex sentence. By removing some of the clauses and subordinate clauses the core becomes The fact ... is neither an indictment ... of (admin or army or nation). Normally the word neither is paired with nor to form a compound conjunction. Laz instead confused himself with a triple compound prepositional phrase at the end and left off the conjoined idea. None the less, neither is above all else a negation and so his phrase becomes <font color=green>The fact ... is not an indictment of (a or a)</font>. The fact is Laz defined to be <font color=green>that some crimes were committed by some American soldiers</font> or to be short, a crime. By simple substitution the core of the sentence becomes <font color=green>The crime is not an indictment</font>. I do not even see it indirectly hinted at either I trust that now you do. Your analogy <font color=purple>That is not an indictment against sports. </font> is not very accurate. Sports is the context of the crime (people who cross the line) and not the perpetrator. You made an analogy for a sentence like <font color=navy>That crime is not an indictment of war</font>. The similar analogy to Laz's statement would be <font color=navy>the crime of crossing the line is not an indictment of people who cross the line</font> and other than the technicality that crimes and indictments are not exactly the same, you can see that is exactly the people who should be held accountable. . Next you will .... I do not even know precisely what I may write next. I can't possibly see how you can predict it.<sarcasm> TP