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: haqihana who wrote (113109)	5/9/2005 11:32:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793649

I understand that there are people here who don't like my attitude. I have a great appreciation for argumentation. Competent, good-faith argumentation requires that you read and understand a point and frame your rebuttal accordingly rather than just infer what you will and then shoot from the hip in reply. I realize that that requires more effort than some care to expend. They are, of course, free to pass on my statements. If that is perceived as a bad attitude on my part, so be it. you have a way of using words, and phrases, that have vague meanings, and are designed in such a way that, when shown to be inaccurate, you can wiggle around and deny that you said what you said. My way of using words is an aim for precision. If I use words conveying detail, then that's what I'm aiming for. If I make broad statements, it's not so that I can later wiggle, it's because I'm talking about something broad. Any attempt to make my broad statements into some detailed subset of them is bogus. As for inaccuracy, I acknowledged, as is my custom, the one inaccuracy that was demonstrated. Perhaps you missed it. but the comprehension of what you are actually saying, is a bit lacking to say the least. The content of a discussion is much more important than the use of semantics. I agree that comprehension is at issue. If people don't comprehend what I'm saying, then they should ask for clarification or ignore the question, not make up something and then try to tell me that what they inferred was what I said. My trying to restate or repeat to improve someone else's comprehensive is not wiggling. The minimal show of polite respect is to accept a person's own meaning of his own words. Disagree with them if you will. That's another matter. I do not make an issue of anyone's lack of attention or comprehension until and unless he starts telling me that what he inferred rather than what I said is what I said. I consider that beyond the pale. In your first statement about the killings at the olympics, which I cannot quote verbatim, you left the idea that you were talking about special forces What triggered this discussion was a blog who was taking issue with a statement made about a Spielberg movie. That statement included this assertion: "Police sharpshooters were recklessly given the Go command to open fire on the kidnappers." My first statement was to disagree that the Munich event was a parable for Iraq, as claimed by the blogger. My second statement was to disagree with the above assessment and to redirect fault from the "police" (not special forces, mind you) rescue operation to the political decision to exclude the Israelis from the process. In the course of that I said: "the German police lacked the wherewithal to do the job," which is apparently what exercized unclewest because that statement was his stated point of departure. Subsequent to that, at his instigation and despite my attempts to reel it back, the discussion was redirected onto special forces and the rescue operation aspect of "the job." I acknowledge that I let him suck me into that and that his ensuing preoccupation with special forces might make it look like it was a discussion about special forces, but that doesn't change my original point, to which I could never get him back.