I've been very busy lately and have mainly gone into lurk mode.
rdgs,
larry
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:26:28 -0600, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can let it lie. I am satisfied that you were not deliberately
> insulting and I hope that the converse is also true.
>
> I do think that a careful reading of all of the many posts I had made
> on the topic-- many of them addressed to you -- might have kept you
> from leaping to the conclusion that you leapt to. I would describe
> myself as often overly tentative, often. I rarely write unqualified
> declarative sentences at all let alone about hypothetical high treason
> by the chief executive.
>
> On the other hand, if I were going to express a dislike of Americans I
> would not mess around taking swipes at Bush, I'd go for the jugular :)
> Take a look at what I had to say about the Ontario Registrar-General
> and the good people of Thunder Bay a few months back :) I think I
> really offended Larry Lyons, who turns out to have grown up there :)
> But the way Larry, it's a bit late but you DO know I didn't mean
> anything personal right?
>
> <g>
>
> But ok. I think I have already clarified the question of what I did
> mean -- that while Afghanistan is more morally defensible than Iraq it
> is messier from a PR point of view. I really don't have enough
> information to diagnose the reasons for the mess.
>
> But there seemed little point in further discussion until we got this
> straight. Have we?
>
> Dana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're still wrong.
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Why is the most obvious reason an extreme paranoid
> conclusion?
> If it's so paranoid ask her what she did mean.
>
> I on the other hand would like to let this dead horse
> lie.
>
> -sm
>
> --- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The "can not" covers the fact that he's not able
> > to
> > > find him. Adding "will not" would be redundant
> > unless
> > > it was meant as an intentionaly will not.
> > > At least that's how I read it. If I read it wrong
> > ,
> > > again sorry.
> >
> > "Won't" in this context could mean either an active
> > choice (I will do
> > something.) or a result (what will happen). But even
> > if it is the
> > active choice, she doesn't attribute a reason. We
> > all know that there
> > are many reasons for things that happen in
> > Washington that are never
> > made public. To jump to the extreme conclusion that
> > it meant an active
> > collaboration with bin Laden or in planning 9/11
> > borders on paranoia.
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> >
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
