Is Bush neuro-impaired?
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 16, 2004 02:09
VIEWED: 8191
PAGE 8 of 10
LOL, you should know me better than that Geezer, I don't stoop to calling folks names or cast unfounded dispersions on their character.
{
I know ya dinna mean me, just had to poke the bear a mite)
Context, to have real meaning, has to come from individual perspective, rearing/training and other various cultural 'isms'.
Even folks in the same country, provence, city, town, social group and even family do not always share 'context'. Context can be as relative as perspective.
But you did make my point for me -- thanks Geezer!
"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
There were two extremely weak references, and I wonder why you are not carping about the other one as well.
So, here is the answer, again:
BACKGROUND
AS I EXPLAINED, I prefer to work from original documents. When they are not available, one must cast widely and then perform an analysis. MANY papers carried the AP wire story verbatim. Posting link after link to what is ultimately the same thing is not really useful, is it? To try to expand on the information available, I looked at additional articles.
I POSTED LINKS TO THE UNIQUE SOURCES that had information, not just the ones supportive of my point.
I did not post links to places I looked at if they did not contain information on the report. For example, I did not post a link to the UN website, because I couldn't locate the original report there. Not did I post links to the many publications I looked at that carried the AP wire story, since they didn't have the link to the text of the report I was seeking.
ANSWER
I posted those links because I looked at the contents and evaluated them, and to some extent they contributed to my conclusions. There were some that contributed mostly in the negative.
If it was a paper, I think this would be an example of avoiding plagiarism. As a scientist, my tenet is that one reports ALL data.
Got it now ? Or do I have to make this even simpler?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
...Got it now ? Or do I have to make this even simpler?
No. I got it now.
1.You cite four references, including the Vanguard article, and state, "Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts."
2. I read the Vanguard article (which seemed the "most right-wing") and note that it doesn't "repeat the same facts." That it actually contradicts most of your points. I wonder about this and ask for clarification.
3. After a few skirmishes with SignyM, you return and, following the usual preliminary insults, proceed to deconstruct the Vanguard article, which you originally stated "repeat(ed) the same facts" and show how every sentence is either a lie, an opinion, or an incomplete description.
Obviously, my mistake was in thinking that your claim that the articles "repeat the same facts" meant that the articles repeated the same facts. Perfectly clear now.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good question, si he neuro-impaired where is the evidence ?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/foolbush.mov
http://www.ericblumrich.com/wmf/switch.wmv
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
2. I read the Vanguard article (which seemed the "most right-wing") and note that it doesn't "repeat the same facts." That it actually contradicts most of your points. I wonder about this and ask for clarification.
3. After a few skirmishes with SignyM, you return and, following the usual preliminary insults, proceed to deconstruct the Vanguard article, which you originally stated "repeat(ed) the same facts" and show how every sentence is either a lie, an opinion, or an incomplete description.
Quote:
From what I recall of The Vanguard, they're about polar opposites from you and Rue on most stuff, and I reserve the same skeptcism for their positions that I do for yours.
I guess I expected more of you, oh vaunted skeptic. When you pointed to the Vanguard article I assumed that you would bring to it the same magnifying glass that you bring to more left-wing opinions, and realize that the article even contradicted ITSELF (referring to WMD in one para and WMD program components in another).
It gets annoying when someone exercises skepticism about some things but not others. You take a consistent point of view, but when your bias is pointed out you claim "Oh, it was just a joke:
Quote:
The psychologists then began the brainwashing procedure {on Ghoulman} and discovered...well...let’s just say you can’t wash what you can’t find.... Just kiddin', Ghoul.
or
Quote:
Is she really a closet Bushie trying to slip one in on us, or did she just not read it completely before she cited it? I suspect the latter. I just wanted her to check it out and see if she really wanted to include it as a reference. I even put the little winky guy on there (the universal symbol of "not being serious").
What concerns me even more than politics right now is that fact that so many people can't take a F'ing joke.
You NEVER make an anti-Bush joke, you ALWAYS deconstruct anti-Bush statements to the nth degree. You're not as unbiased as you claim, and it's hard to believe that someone as intelligent as you (you write nice poetry BTW) doesn't realize it. Is it reasonable to conclude that you're propagandizing on purpose?
Just a joke.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess I expected more of you, oh vaunted skeptic. When you pointed to the Vanguard article I assumed that you would bring to it the same magnifying glass that you bring to more left-wing opinions, and realize that the article even contradicted ITSELF (referring to WMD in one para and WMD program components in another).
I did.
Quote:
Come on. Even someone as "stupid" as I can see that the Vanguard story is as biased as a Michael Moore documentory. The stuff about "One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart?" is revealed as bogus from the original news reports about the Jordanian incident.
What's really funny in that in your Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 21:22 post you completely refute the Vanguard article. And what's even funnier is that I agree with you about most of it. Which leaves us with the original question; why did you use it as cite to support your position in the first place? That's all I really wanted to know.
I believe I also called it a "right-wing rant" at some point.
At no time in this thread have I even criticized the position Rue took in her original post that cited the Vanguard article, just what I considered an inappropriate cite for what I thought was supposed to be a persuasive argument.
I agree with her assessment that most of the Vanguard article is B.S.
I willingly agree that I am not grimly dead serious at all times. QED.
How many Republican voters does it take to change a light bulb? None. They prefer to stay in the dark.
George Bush walks into a bar with a ventriliquist dummy. "Hey!" The bartender says. "We don't serve no dummies in here". "That's okay". The dummy responds. "He doesn't drink".
How many SignyMs does it take to change a light bulb? Are you stupid or just blind? That lightbulb doesn't need changing. You don't understand anything about lightbulbs. I'm sick and tired of your anti-lightbulb propaganda. And besides, Bush lied about WMD.
Couldn't let Ghoul have all the attention "Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts."
AGAIN, it's so nice to be misquoted. What I ACTUALLY wrote was:
"Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts (speculation and innuendo stripped)"
I then go on to list the points of concurrence.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I guess I can't say that you NEVER tell an anti-Bush joke! Hahahahaha!!!
OK, OK... Let's go have a beer or something!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts."
AGAIN, it's so nice to be misquoted. What I ACTUALLY wrote was:
"Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts (speculation and innuendo stripped)"
I then go on to list the points of concurrence.
Right. I had forgotten that anything which does not agree with your views is speculation and innuendo.
Rue and Geezer walk into a bar. "What'll you have?" the barkeep asks.
"Scotch on the rocks" Rue replys.
"Scotch rocks" the bartender confirms.
"Don't mis-quote me!" Rue snarls. I said 'Scotch on the rocks'!"
"Yes, Ma'am! Scotch-on-the-rocks." The cringing publican answers. "And you, buddy?"
"Whatever she wants me to have." replys Geezer, eyeing Rue nerviously.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I guess I can't say that you NEVER tell an anti-Bush joke! Hahahahaha!!!
OK, OK... Let's go have a beer or something!
I lift my freshly made Boston Sidecar in your general direction. Salute!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME