McCain Moment... it's not that important

[gerbick]

wow. you still don't get it.

Oh well... guess you're a victim now since you don't have a choir singing your praises for your ability to stand up against so much bitterness, et al. Yawn. Run and hide... you've been questioned... how typical.

Seriously. I said it in plain English more than once. your commentary was an addition, it wasn't needed. your denial of "adding" anything was not needed when it was obvious that those were your words, and not what was quoted.

so now that's how it goes? get called on the facts, get called on using literary devices that I learned in my very first year as a journalist major... and yet hide behind the fact that you felt as if it were needed - hint: it wasn't needed - and that when you point fingers, use fact and not your opinion to back it up. You're just as guilty of swinging too far from the truth as you stated that Frets was.

In fact, you both are adding what you feel what was said when his statements - and lord, this is actually sounding like I'm defending McCain - were pretty damn crystal clear to all of the world but you two people.

you want to call it a tirade. fine. the fact still remains... you added words, then denied it, then called it a literary convention, but yet cannot concede that it was indeed what it was originally billed to be... an addition.

Feel free to state your opinion, be ready to stand by your opinion, don't pass your opinion off as fact. Too much of that between the main two people in this thread already. Frets went one way, you went the opposite. In the middle was the truth.

That is all. I'm quite sure you could even understand that.

And per usual, I expect that you find fault with just that last sentence as opposed to the message of the entire set of statements above it. Sad.

The CL has now become "follow" or "believe" whatever is said, and once you go against it, it's an "attack"... and thus the person with the agenda is the "victim" and thus sympathy means to "follow" or "believe"... or else. Meanwhile, questioning authority is... "problematic".

That's just downright sad.

[japangreg]

"Why mention his name?" Why not? I just don't understand this whole partisan tug-of-war mentality.

<hunts for a "clinton did it too" deflection...>

Are you interested in what I think as a person or do I merely symbolize your perception of a political force? I'm getting the impression that I'm experiencing the psychological baggage of anyone who has bad feelings about Bush, Republicans, etc. regardless of what my positions are or what I write.

I work with enough Repubs here that you could never encompass all the soul-sucking cognitive disconnection I deal with on a daily basis - and I am interested in your personal thoughts, just trying to make sure that what you are saying is what you actually mean, and not what it appears as if you are saying.

No they don't. The term "Democrats have" does not refer to all Democrats with absolute certainty.

Nor does it refer to specific democrats with certainty, in which case you qualify the statement. If you don't people will ask for it, which is what happened.

What you are doing is applying your personal worry that it might be misinterpereted to mean all Democrats with absolute certainty.

No, I was misinterpreting it.

The only reason it should be necessary to qualify in that case is if we're interested in quantifying specifically how many or who amongst Democrats were applicable. In the context of this subject, that quantification was irrelevent to the point I was making. The point I was making was that Frets was seemingly treating McCain differently than people he agrees with for partisan reasons. How many or which partisans he agreed with was beside the point.

Then why the objection to just saying "Sorry, I meant some democrats"?

You seem to read everything I write to be understood from a purely partisan perspective. I'm starting to understand this pattern as meaning that I am more interested in knowing or debating individuals who post at flashkit while others are more interested in some larger partisan drama. I don't know how else to explain so much ramped up hostility over questions of semantics.

Talk about ad hominem...

...which brings me to:

Hah! The irony.

Really? My understanding of ad hominem is using a person's character rather than dealing with the substance of his argument (even googled it, if interested), kind of like saying "We all know the media is biased, so we can't trust XWZ..." Perhaps you have a different understanding of the term, but I haven't attacked your character in my posts, I've challenged the factual basis of your claims.

My post on straw men was not aimed at you by name, although I will admit you were the stimulus for it: I've spent the last 7 years listening to Bush preface ridiculously idiotic, common sense proclamations with "Some folks say" or some other derivation intended to cast the nuanced opinions and positions of his opponents in a ridiculous light.

I'm not sure what this example proves. But, I do appreciate the trip down memory lane. Unfortunately, I think that the climate here in the CL has become dumbed down and bitter compared to those days, imo. I miss Davo and the Geezer.

Just showing that I have always made the effort to be clear in my posts, even if not always appreciated.

...where have those 2 gone, anyway?

[FlashLackey]

This is not a Frets one way, FlashLackey another situation. Just because I question someones statement about something political doesn't mean that I'm endorsing the partisan opposite. I have declared no position on this subject relative to Frets' other than to point out that his joke relied on a falsehood. It did. McCain did not say that his plan was to never take troops out.

What you are calling an addition was not commentary. It was paraphrasing the question to add context to the phrase I quoted. A paraphrase is not an addition. It is a re-wording of existing meaning. It is only an addition in the most literal sense and I have already implied the absurdity of taking issue with it in that way. There is no more basis for taking issue with the literal adding of a paraphrase than there is with taking issue with commas or question marks. I have a degree in writing and am surprised that you don't understand this after being a journalism major.

I don't really care if you think it was needed. Maybe it was needed by someone else. Regardless, there are many statements that you make that I feel are not needed. But, it really isn't the usual point of communication to go back and forth about which phrases were needed. The point is to understand meaning and I have been right here clarifying my meaning, no matter how obnoxious people have been in arguing semantics. Far from running and hiding or the running and whining in the mod forum that others have done in the past, I continue to be available to answer any questions about anything I mean to say. What is truly sad is that, for lack of satisfaction in debating meaning, people have resorted to semantic battles to try and feel better about it.

[FlashLackey]

Then why the objection to just saying "Sorry, I meant some democrats"?

I did do that. But, without the apology. I don't believe that it's appropriate to have to apologize for how someone might misinterperet a sound statement. I don't have a problem with clarifying until it gets the point where the effort to understand my meaning doesn't appear to be genuine and it's just semantic wrestle mania.

Really? My understanding of ad hominem is using a person's character rather than dealing with the substance of his argument (even googled it, if interested), kind of like saying "We all know the media is biased, so we can't trust XWZ..." Perhaps you have a different understanding of the term, but I haven't attacked your character in my posts, I've challenged the factual basis of your claims.

From your link:

consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I interperet your suggestion that I bring up ad hominem more than anyone else as an appeal to a characteristic rather than a challenge of the factual basis of the charge. Maybe I simply recieve more ad hominem attacks than anyone else and I am justified in bringing it up more often.

...where have those 2 gone, anyway?

Good question. I heard that Geezer still posted in the technical forums. But, had made some personal decision to not post in the CL. That was a while ago.

Regretfully, the last I've heard from Davo, he seemed disillusioned with our usual mutual respect pact. I don't think he made a final statement. Just stopped showing up all of a sudden.

[japangreg]

I interperet your suggestion that I bring up ad hominem more than anyone else as an appeal to a characteristic rather than a challenge of the factual basis of the charge. Maybe I simply recieve more ad hominem attacks than anyone else and I am justified in bringing it up more often.

Not an appeal to anything - just something I've noticed over the years as I rarely encounter that phrase in conversation, on line or off. I spent quite a few years studying Latin, so when someone uses such a phrase, my ears perk up.

[FlashLackey]

What is your feeling about studying Latin in hind-sight? Worth it?

I think it would be an interesting subject. But, I only know it from the outside looking in.

[gerbick]

But, fair is fair and if I read something that seems over-board to me, I'm going to offer my perspective on it.

It's this part when you stated that your perspective would be injected. I had stated quite earlier that there was really no need to further adding any comments to what was said because simply put, it didn't support Fret's (direct quote) "idea of him saying that they should "never come home" an inaccuracy" nor does it show your (direct quote) "accurate reading of what he actually said" because what you had typed was indeed your perspective.

It's this easy. Think about it like this:

Did McCain say exactly everything - brackets and all - what you typed? Yes/No
Did McCain say exactly what Frets was implying? Yes/No
You added the bracketed verbiage? Yes/No

That's it. I'm not holding my tongue when I say stuff like "where the **** did that come from" when honestly it's not a full truth. I don't get why you can't just understand that.

Say whatever you wish. Want to paint yourself as the victim; go for it. It's a weak position to rollover into. Or feel free to maintain the equally condescending tone as you've painted my words as an "attack" that's made your reminisce of "older days". It's ok.

I'm just saying Frets was assuming, and incorrect. Your assumed extra verbiage - which ironically came right after a so-called exaggeration - was your perspective and should have been presently solely as thus.

Let's see... I think I left perhaps two places where you could twist my words even more. Have fun.

[FlashLackey]

Did McCain say exactly everything - brackets and all - what you typed? Yes/No

What I typed does not mean that I was saying that McCain said it. As I pointed out before, the purpose of the brackets is to point out that the person did not say those words. This question doesn't even apply to what I did.

You added the bracketed verbiage? Yes/No

I added a paraphrase of the question to give context to the phrase I quoted. Did you add a question mark to the end of this question? Yes/No

I'm not painting myself as a victim. I'm just lamenting that the quality of debate here has deteriorated.

[gerbick]

You're right. It decidedly went from jovial to serious once somebody failed to get the humor.

Imagine that.

[FlashLackey]

Yes. Frets and his hilarious McCain jokes. I'm sure this thread was on it's way to being a Def Comedy Jam before I went and ruined it. My bad.

Seriously. No hard feelings from me. Peace.

[gerbick]

None here either.

I personally just didn't get how it went from a McCain inaccuracy - c'mon, Bush is susceptible to them too - and you were the first person to bring up Democrats, Obama, exaggeration and all I was doing was saying "where did that come from?"... plus a few more of my typical expletives.

I'll stick to my "danger will robinson" jokes about McCain... his mannerisms are just funny to me. funnier in person.

[FlashLackey]

Heh. I'm not familiar with danger will robinson. But, no doubt about it. He's an awkward dude.

[japangreg]

What is your feeling about studying Latin in hind-sight? Worth it?

I think it would be an interesting subject. But, I only know it from the outside looking in.

Definately worth it, although it was painful at the time; six years of hell. On the plus side, our translation exercises were from some of the classics, so I got two birds with one stone.

He's an awkward dude.

Really?

[Frets]

Bumpity bump bump.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...aq-851036.html

No bid contracts.
No plan on how or what cut the iraqi people will get out of the deal.

As well Check out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25274159

As K.O said "Mission Freakin Accomplished"

[FlashLackey]

lol. that guy is the bill oreilly of the left.

thank you for reminding me why I stick to C-SPAN and judge these things for myself.

[Loyal Rogue]

lol. that guy is the bill oreilly of the left.

thank you for reminding me why I stick to C-SPAN and judge these things for myself.

LOL
I just had to quote that piece of comedy gold.
I haven't laughed so hard since I heard Bill O'Rielly claim to be an independent.



Thanks, I needed that. It's been a rotten day so far.

[Frets]

**epiphany**

Can't recall FL citing a cspan link when responding to something.
Looks like I have a new source to quote from.

Still you haven't addressed the other link.

[FlashLackey]

Good grief, Frets. Are you serious? Do you know what C-SPAN is?

C-SPAN is not a network news station that spoon feeds ideas to you like "KO" or "BO". There are no "cspan link"s to cite other than schedules and maybe clips of actual hearings, etc. You just watch directly what is being said and by whom in congress and other government business.

As for your other link, I find the news unremarkable. No companies in the world are better suited to help the Iraqi's repair their oil system than those that are doing the job. They have a pr issue due to the history of foreign control of oil. But, the bottom line is that modernizing their oil industry will help Iraqi's. You must have a pretty dim view of the intelligence of Iraqi's if you think that they can't negotiate with oil companies to simply pay them to help.