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: LindyBill who wrote (98832)	2/5/2005 6:02:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793690

Are you trying to claim that you thought he was just comparing them on one trait? No, Bill, not just one. I count five, although you could parse it differently and come up with a different number. <<Both men are (1)first-born sons of powerful fathers who (2)partied like adolescents well into their adult lives, after which they (3)submitted to their dynastic fates as heads of state. Both (4)avoid critical thought, preferring to (5)surround themselves with yes men and apply propagandistic slogans to the onrushing complexities of justice, culture, economics, and foreign policy.>> This was a deliberate smear job. In my second post on this subject I said "Fair? Maybe not since the hook is clearly provocative and unnecessary to the point of the article." Two posts later I said "I said it was apt but not necessarily fair. Were you listening?" No, I didn't call it a "smear job" nor will I. I called it a "deliberately provocative hook." I don't think it qualifies as a smear job because the five points of comparison are arguably valid and the other alleged points of comparison are figments. They are your own inference. Sure, the hook was deliberate. It provokes the reader's emotional response. It sets a mood. You and Nadine took the hook. Swallowed the line and sinker, too.