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: KonKilo who wrote (23411)	7/9/2006 2:28:58 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542922

You said you thought that the two sets of motives in question were equivalent. No, I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly said otherwise. My opening gambit: "Interesting that Krugman would fuss about the attack on the MOTIVES of the Times and then attack the MOTIVES of the WH" And my later restatement for clarification" "Your argument and Shiloh's seem to be one of EQUIVALENCE, whether one case of imputed motive is stronger than the other or fairer than the other. That is beside the point, IMO. They both impute motive and that is my complaint." To prove this, you'll need to defend/explain those who attacked the NYT. All I have to "prove" is that both challenges were directed at motives, period, because that's all I disapproved--fussing about someone attacking motive while attacking motive, oneself. That's why I asked the question as to whether or not you really wanted to do that. OK, that's an explanation for the question, although it doesn't explain the misunderstanding that triggered it. Thank you for the response.