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