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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (340289)	6/13/2007 6:02:10 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575883

re: I would like to think that you do this because you don't have a more material argument to make, but it's worse...you do it because your brain seems to work that way. No it's the former.

To: Alighieri who wrote (340289)	6/14/2007 11:01:36 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575883

There where no significant amounts of WMD in Iraq by the time of the invasion. That's a much more important fact then whether there where any WMD at all. You finally got it...i think. What I assail is your irrelevant nitpicking. When people keep saying "there where no WMD...there where no WMD...there where no WMD", pointing out that there where is neither irrelevant not nitpicking. Its directly relevant to what they are saying, and they are making a directly false statement. I should not have to point that out!! It's obvious to most people, but not to you apparently. You like "precision". I'm not asking for precision. I'm not asking for any specific number, or detailed information. I'm neither providing nor calling for a sea of details. I am however calling for the truth. A vague but true statement may be fine. A precisely false statement usually isn't. At best its something that can just be ignored, but you don't want it to be ignored, you use it as premise in your arguments.