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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12383)	2/16/2006 11:02:25 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541402

I thought you were saying that the judges were credible and Toensing wasn't, Depends on which post you read. Why do you assume without a smidgen of evidence that Toensign is not credible as a source? To what item of dishonesty do you point that suggests she's a liar? You won't find me attacking the judges' credibility because I don't know enough to comment on it, and I have yet to see anything from you or John suggesting Toensign is dishonst. The only "argument" I've heard is that she worked for a GOP administration, and therefore is incredible. If you don't see the problem with that logic, there's nothing I can do to help you. By those lights, anyone who works for an Administration is incredible, and I simply cannot go that far. The fact that she has an opinion and that she has experience beyond that of 99.99% of the populace, is not a reason to brand her a liar. This mode of thinking suggests that everyone with relevant experience and a viewpoint is a liar; I can drive a truck through the holes in your logic and John's. Show me the lie, then and only then call her a liar. Only then will your arguments and John's have some merit.

To: Lane3 who wrote (12383)	2/16/2006 11:52:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541402

I see a distinction between you and John, so I apologize to you to the extent I lumped you both together. John's position is definitely more extreme. Still, I have a problem assuming that anyone is incredible before some sort of palpable reason for a lack of credibility is established such as she has lied before, is a perjurer, etc.

To: Lane3 who wrote (12383)	2/17/2006 11:24:33 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541402

I thought you were saying that the judges were credible and Toensing wasn't, which is why I popped in. I wouldn't put money on any of them. We just don't know enough. Actually I was and would. That is, I find no credibility in either Teonsing or her husband. There was a period in which she and Joe ?? popped up all over the tubes. Stretch was hardly the right descriptor for their arguments. As for the judges, since no one has publicly argued they resigned for any reason other than policy disagreement, I find that more credible. Made a mistake on my computer in the early hours of the morning. I let a checkdisk routine get started, around 5:30 and it's still churning away. And here it is almost 11:30. It's checking an external hard disk that had little remaining free space. So I'm on a barely functioning laptop. Got to keep up with the e-mail.