Sometimes there's a post so good...
POSTED BY: Hardware
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 00:32
VIEWED: 9151
PAGE 10 of 10
I don't mind bad grammer, I partake often myself. As long as the person has thought about the phrases they use, know they are peculiar/ off kilter, but choose to use them anyways, then they can say whatever they want. BTW its funny but I never found text being used as a verb to be odd, for some reason I kind of like the sound of it. Lets face it, I'm a very subjective person about language use, some things I like and some things I don't, there's not rhyme or reason to some of it, like "my bad" that one just irks me some, but I think "texting" as a word is cool. Its mostly subjective but there are a few exceptions, there are a couple of words that I hate the current vernacular use for. But most of it is subjective and it really doesn't matter what one individual person thinks one way or the other. When someone uses the one word that I absolutely hate seeing misused I'll say something, the rest is just my opinion and is more musing out loud than anything.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Regardless of * your * problems with this, it is still evidence."
They aren't just * my * problems with it. Even the US government doesn't consider this to be evidence. That's why prosecutors ignored it and used a different FACTUAL translation/ transcription as legal evidence. And no other government that I know of credits your version as evidence either. Your version was internationally considered untrue (including by our friends the British and Italians). AT THE TIME this was released in the US media, it was widely discredited.
But that you consider it to be 'evidence', means YOU think it is fact, because in order to be EVIDENCE (at least in your mind) it has to be factual. But as I have pointed out, it isn't. The people who have translated and studied it within the US government don't think so, and other governments don't think so either. It is perhaps PR, perhaps a commercial to sell you something, or perhaps intentional propaganda, but YOUR version is not EVIDENCE.
Because it is a fiction.
I'll call it propaganda. Given that the government had BOTH versions and CHOSE to widely release the misleading one tells me that the publicly released version is an intentional effort on the part of government to mislead the public. By definition, it's propaganda. And as a believer in authority, you accept it as fact. Why? Because the authorities told you so.
Yes, they do mislead, and quite often, counting on people like you. They count on their authority to sway your judgment and credit their message, even when it is a fiction.
ETA: if somebody found this for you, they do know that it's as discredited as 'Curveball'. They have fed you bad information to advance their own agenda. Do not assume they are your friend.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bump for Hware
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Regardless of your problems with this, it is still evidence. Unless you or Kwicko want to appoint yourself grand arbiter for acceptable evidence.
Isn't that what you're doing? Aren't you trying to tell all of us what "acceptable" evidence is? In fact, aren't you rather insistent in your dumbfuckery in such matters? You keep whinging about others "getting their panties in a bunch", and then you "get sand in your pussy" when someone points out that your "evidence" has never been authenticated and much of it has been outright refuted and disproven. And you still insist that you're right, when you have no "evidence" to support your idiotic claims.
Quote:
It appears to me that you can't stand when your "facts" are easily refutable.
"Dear Kettle,
You're black.
Signed,
The Pot"
Do I think Bin Laden is dead? Yup.
Do I think he was behind 9/11? Pretty much.
But pardon me if I don't just take your say-so as "proof" of such things.
I can't PROVE that he *wasn't* involved, but unfortunately for you, I don't have any need to. Under our system, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused is guilty. It's not on everyone else to prove innocence.
Some people say that's this country's greatest achievement: our legal code. Others (Republicans) seem to think the Constitution and our laws are "just a goddam piece of paper"...
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME