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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (135155)	6/2/2004 4:39:42 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

When reading for comprehension, it's more accurate to observe the context in whole. Win said C2 made up all of those observations. With only a very quick examination, I provided evidence (some of it your own) that Win was very much incorrect. I would submit that your only concern — that of C2's first point (because the others are easily proven) is only a matter of archive digging. But hey, no matter, as the contextual issue is rather more the point, well ahead of micro-managing a singular pet clause or sentence. And the "make more baseless statements" — what were those, perchance?

To: epicure who wrote (135155)	6/2/2004 5:44:27 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

C2 admitted to being wrong about what "many" people here think, at least as regards Islamic radicals. C2 could not produce one post from anyone on this board who thought they were not dangerous. I doubt you can either. Of course C2 then went on to make more baseless statements... Oh, what self-serving bullshit. Here's what I said: And you're probably right, there are probably no posters here who dismiss IslamoWaco terrorism as not dangerous. Read s-l-o-w-l-y. Wet your index finger and follow the text, if it helps. Well, maybe not, at least not on your screen. Do you see the word "probably" in there? It's in there twice; I was not being redundant or writing poorly. I'm a fair editor of my own stuff. I also appreciate the limitations of my audience. You have shown evidence of not insubstantial reading comprehension limitations (some of which appear to be intentional) so I specifically tailored what I wrote to you so that you wouldn't miss my drift. I threw in the double negative just for fun, hoping you might take the bait and get all pedagogic with me. I failed on both counts. You missed the double "probably" and the double negative. Sniff. The word "probably" was included twice so that you could tell that I was making a quick guess. In case I was wrong. In case my memory had failed me since I do recall some posters making the claim that terrorism is not that big a deal. In case you didn't understand. As a safety feature in case you didn't catch the first "probably." Since this forum is hardly a peer-reviewed publication, I didn't take the time to dig through the morass--another reason for injecting uncertainty into the sentence. But I did recall your post about terrorism and "the economy" and how the economy is more important, in your opinion. A simple-minded howler of a post. You did not respond to my post suggesting that "the economy" and terrorism may already be linked. I produced evidence of this notion by linking The Economist magazine's article in which an expert was quoted as stating that the current price of oil presently carries about an $8 terror premium. Don't reconstruct or revise. Do try to use your noggin.