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