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 (80992)	10/26/2004 11:39:35 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

LOL! Your position is laughable. Do I really have to define the real meaning of the word "and"? It's in addition to, not instead of, or an unrelated matter. You sound just like Kerry & Clinton. It only means what I say it means & is subject to multiple revisions if I'm exposed as wrong or not being truthful. "the part you bolded, doesn't affect the meaning of the first half. The conjunction he used is an "and."" Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and - used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type; used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function - used as a function word to express logical modification, consequence, antithesis, or supplementary explanation - used in logic to form a conjunction

To: Lane3 who wrote (80992)	10/28/2004 7:46:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793896

My truncation of the second half of the compound predicate, the part you bolded, doesn't affect the meaning of the first half. I don't agree. "because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" Implies that we will get hit again if we make the wrong choice on Nov 2nd. "because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.'" Is about the danger that we can hit again but then don't treat the attack as if we were at war but rather as as a regular criminal act. The statement after the and is only relevant in the context of us being hit again. Saying the danger is X and Y doesn't have to mean two different dangers. Its one danger that X happens and then Y happens, or in this case that we get hit again and then respond in an innapropriate way. Tim