On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

But I *can* make an assumption.

Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as
fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither.

Are you referring to the phrase, "to maintain the party line"?

Yes.

If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief.

My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based
on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But
absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and
unproven assumption and is best treated as such.

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

I can accept that.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any
motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they
cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions.

On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that
you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris.

And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'?

No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing
disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably
drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of
argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions."

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I
can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others
here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition. I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons


Joe Parsons


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

[1] Sorry...one of my often-unreasonable pet peeves.

Joe Parsons wrote:



Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms:


Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.



Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain-

Sure there is. Bush simply has to tell the truth.



And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.



I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:22:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:



Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms:


Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.



Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain-

Sure there is. Bush simply has to tell the truth.



And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.



I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.

Joe - If you have read the above, maybe you'll understand better the post I made
in response to yours five minutes ago.

We are talking a 'bud' here. Eventually it may bloom. God help us.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:22:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:



Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms:


Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.



Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain-

Sure there is. Bush simply has to tell the truth.



And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.



I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.

Harry, you're watching again!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:22:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

[snip]

Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.

[snip]

And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.

Thank you *so* much for elevating the tone of discourse.

By the way, Harry: what *are* my political inclinations? And how do you know?

Joe Parsons




I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:

snip

If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

Now I understand what Sister Isabella meant when she slapped me upside the head
and told me to quit splitting the damn (my emphasis) infinitives!

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used. No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

snip

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

I can accept that.

snip

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I
can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others
here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

True.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'. Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads
in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.
He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:

snip

If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

Now I understand what Sister Isabella meant when she slapped me upside the head
and told me to quit splitting the damn (my emphasis) infinitives!

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used.

Yes, it was--but by whom? (By the way: the use of passive voice is often a good
way to make a truthful statement without having to attribute it. But don't tell
anyone! Shhhhhh.)

No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

Someone's failure to rebut a particular comment does not conclusively prove its
merit.

snip

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

I can accept that.

snip

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I
can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others
here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

True.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

I am not going to let you off the hook on that one, John. You made your
comments about spelling/grammar in response to some of basskisser's posts. I
simply observed to you that such an approach is beneath you. Technically, it
belongs to a class of logical fallacy called "fallacies of distraction."

ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'.

Actually, these "discussions" really have little to do with the political
continuum. If I were to enthusiastically support[1] the current
administration's policies in the Middle East, would that make me a conservative?
How about if I also support reproductive rights (traditionally a "liberal"
position)? School vouchers? Gay marriage?

My position on any of these issues? I'm not sayin'. But slapping a label (e.g.
"liberal" or "conservative") on someone because of his position on a small
sampling of issues is not a good idea. I suspect that Mr. Krause believes me to
be aligned with you politically, since I don't insult you. So, let's say I
embrace every liberal cause that comes to the fore (do I? I'm not sayin');
Krause has already told us and demonstrated that he embraces an essentially
liberal political position. Would that make *me* "Harry's bud," as well?

Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads

I realize that you've put two unrelated thoughts into this paragraph--but do you
believe that a person's boorish behavior is indicative of his political
affiliation? If you do, then you'd have to include a great many other people
here into a "liberal" camp--and they may object to that classification!

in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.

Well, if that's your definition of "bud," I suppose that's okay--but if you mean
"bud" also to mean "friend," you're on shaky ground, I think.

He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

Actually, you've just described an edema--which could be apt, as well.

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

("The jury will disregard...")

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?

*whoosh*

Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

[1] This is the Sister Isabella Memorial Split Infinitive

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:25:41 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:
snip

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used.

Yes, it was--but by whom? (By the way: the use of passive voice is often a good
way to make a truthful statement without having to attribute it. But don't tell
anyone! Shhhhhh.)

I used it. The passive voice wasn't intended to hide attribution. The user of
the phrase, me, was obvious from the preceding paragraph. Perhaps you began
responding before reading the entire paragraph.

No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

Someone's failure to rebut a particular comment does not conclusively prove its
merit.

The question had to do with the definition of 'party line', not the rebuttal of
some argument.

snip
snip
snip
snip

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

I am not going to let you off the hook on that one, John. You made your
comments about spelling/grammar in response to some of basskisser's posts. I
simply observed to you that such an approach is beneath you. Technically, it
belongs to a class of logical fallacy called "fallacies of distraction."

What hook am I on? To what does 'that one' refer? Are you discussing my comment
not debating anything? My comment had to do with this discussion with you. I
did not consider this discussion a debate, but more an exercise in semantics. I
made comments regarding basskisser's post, but I was not debating him. I made no
reference to the gist of his comments (which I couldn't understand anyway), but
to his name-calling while typing gibberish.

snip

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'.

Actually, these "discussions" really have little to do with the political
continuum. If I were to enthusiastically support[1] the current
administration's policies in the Middle East, would that make me a conservative?
How about if I also support reproductive rights (traditionally a "liberal"
position)? School vouchers? Gay marriage?

My position on any of these issues? I'm not sayin'. But slapping a label (e.g.
"liberal" or "conservative") on someone because of his position on a small
sampling of issues is not a good idea. I suspect that Mr. Krause believes me to
be aligned with you politically, since I don't insult you. So, let's say I
embrace every liberal cause that comes to the fore (do I? I'm not sayin');
Krause has already told us and demonstrated that he embraces an essentially
liberal political position. Would that make *me* "Harry's bud," as well?

You are preaching to the choir. I think you have, again, written a response
before reading the entire paragraph. As written, the paragraph provides a
background and rationale for my use of the term 'bud'. If each sentence is taken
separately, then yes, there are unrelated thoughts.

Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads

I realize that you've put two unrelated thoughts into this paragraph--but do you
believe that a person's boorish behavior is indicative of his political
affiliation? If you do, then you'd have to include a great many other people
here into a "liberal" camp--and they may object to that classification!

in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.

Well, if that's your definition of "bud," I suppose that's okay--but if you mean
"bud" also to mean "friend," you're on shaky ground, I think.

You made the assumption that I meant "bud" to mean "friend." As far as I know,
I'm the only person in the group who has even met Harry.

He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

Actually, you've just described an edema--which could be apt, as well.

Except that an edema is an abnormality. Calling someone an edema could be
considered name-calling. There is a negative connotation there.

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

("The jury will disregard...")

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?

*whoosh*

Over whose head did the *whoosh* go? Yours or mine?

Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD