> >> In fact even the conclusion seemed flawed since
> >> "Monday Morning Quarterback"
> >> specifically refers to somebody that claims that
> >> they could have done
> >> something better than somebody else.
> >
> >No wonder we can’t agree.
> >Monday Morning Quarterback =
> >One who criticizes or passes judgment from a
> position
> >of hindsight.
>
> The phrase very clearly refers to somebody who
> claims to have more knowledge
> than the person in the position to actually do the
> thing. It's akin to
> "back seat driver".
I don’t agree. First of all a back seat driver doesn’t
have hindsight, he’s just arrogant.
They don’t necessarily claim to know more. They state
they would’ve done it differently. They question
choices made that they now know were wrong. “If he had
passed it to the other guy it probably wouldn’t have
been intercepted.”
> The ACTUAL quarterback would never be a "Monday
> Morning Quarterback" - only
> the schmoes criticizing him at the water cooler the
> next day can be. I was
> not at all gainsaying the idea that the criticism
> came with the benefit of
> hindsight (my definition included that).
You said it was somebody that claims that they could
have done something better
I don’t think the people at the water cooler think
they could throw or run better than the quarterback.
We’re talking about knowing that a play failed and
they wouldn’t have done it if they were the
quarterback.
You explain you know what I meant but the choice of
words are wrong. Why are you attacking my words? If
you addressed the issue instead of trying to attack my
use of words we wouldn’t waste our time over stupid
definitions.
> I was
> challenging the idea that
> the phrase applied to self-criticism whether it be
> an individual or an
> organization.
I don’t know why you feel it can’t be self-criticism.
The quarterback might be on television after the game
or the next day and say, I shouldn’t have passed it to
him. At the time he didn’t know it would be a bad pass
but now he does. Why are you adding to the definition?
Who told you a quarterback can’t critique himself
after the fact?
They didn’t question the editor’s decision before, but
now with hindsight they do. To me that’s Monday
morning quarterbacking. To you it isn’t so we
understand the phrase differently. What does it have
to do with the message?
> It's also odd to me that you seem to think that the
> definition I gave is
> enough to force a disagreement. What is
> "criticizing or passing judgement"
> if not claiming that you could have done it better
> (or, more specifically
> know how to have it done it better)? I still don't
> think that the phrase
> applies to self-criticism, but the core definitions
> seem the same.
To criticize.
1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge
accordingly
2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of
To Judge:
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing
of evidence and testing of premises
2 : to sit in judgment on : TRY
3 : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and
deliberation
4 : GOVERN, RULE -- used of a Hebrew tribal leader
5 : to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially :
to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him
because of his accent>
6 : to hold as an opinion : GUESS, THINK <I judge she
knew what she was doing>
I don’t know why you think that means could have done
better.
> >See how I came to that conclusion now?
>
> Not at all. Your conclusion was:
> "Sounds like they're claiming that if they weren't
> so
> focused on supporting Bush they would have known the
>
> WMDs didn't exist. "
>
> Neither quote indicates that their actions would
> ever have given them
> knowledge about weapons. Neither indicates a
> "regret of action". In other
> words they do not regret a lack of investigation
> into the matter. The
> statement specifically addresses a lack of urgency
> for material they ALEADY
> HAD.
If they “KNEW” the WMDs didn’t exist they would have
front paged it.
They didn’t. Now they KNOW they don’t exist so they
say they should have supported the skepticism. I don’t
know why you’re trying so hard to dissect my words to
fit your agenda.
> It does NOT sound (again, at least to me) like
> they're claiming a focus of
> support for Bush caused them to miss opportunities
> for investigation (if I
> may paraphrase your statement).
"Administration assertions were on the front page.
Things that challenged the
administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday.
There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going
to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary
stuff?"
> You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion of
> what things sound like,
> but you've not convinced me that the substance of
> the material clearly
> indicates your views at all.
Are you saying again that my reading comprehension
needs improvement?
Is this your way of saying I have no idea what I’m
talking about? Nice.
> My original comment was that it didn't sound, to me,
> like you had read the
> article based on your sarcastic "I knew back then
> there were no WMDs but
> didn't tell anyone" comment. You reply to that with
> a passive-aggressive
> implication that I've a reading comprehension issue
> and an assumption that I
> didn't read the article myself.
I was playing on the fact that some people that
disagree with me on this list call me stupid or claim
I have poor reading comprehension. I figured you were
jumping on the bandwagon by saying I didn’t read the
article. The fact that I commented about the articles
means I did read it, so your stating I probably didn’t
read it draws only one conclusion, I have a reading
comprehension problem. I stated you probably didn’t
read the original article and there’s no way for me to
know that you did.
> Why are conclusions you've come based on your
> reading intelligent and clear,
> but those that differ indicative of comprehension
> issues or failure to even
> consider the material?
You’re the one saying my views don’t make any sense.
I’m only defending my point of view.
> In fact he specifically states that it was the lack
> of enough evidence
> (indicating that they did have at least some
> evidence) that caused him to
> choose the way he did, not some blanket policy to
> support Bush.
That’s your interpretation. I read it as they were
trusting and running everything the administration
said on page one. Everything that questioned the
administration was buried on page 18 or past.
> The stories were written, the investigation
> complete. The statement was
> about their handling of information they already
> had, not regrets about
> information they could have gathered if only they
> didn't support the
> president so much.
>
> They're very clear here that they were not (as
> you're statement indicated)
> supporting Bush by running stories friendly to him.
> They were not stating
> regrets over lack of effort or investigation.
They were trusting and running everything the
administration said on page one. Everything that
questioned the administration was buried. They claimed
page one was a billboard and most people never made it
to page 18.
>
> They are making a clear statement: many wheels were
> in motion, many elements
> were fighting for focus. They made the decision at
> the time to give more
> promotion, time and effort to essentially the same
> things everybody else was
> (this was the "groupthink" that Woodward spoke
> about). And this is what
> they're now apologizing for.
Again, I read it different. They were trusting and
running everything the administration said on page
one. Everything that questioned the administration was
buried. They claimed page one was a billboard and most
people never made it to page 18.
> You can definitely assume reasons for why they
> wouldn't "worry about all
> this contrary stuff", but considering that Bush
> wasn't mentioned and the
> stance of the Post in the past it seems very
> unlikely that it was due to
> "support for the president".
They didn’t mention Bush but they did say the
administration.
"Administration assertions were on the front page.
Things that challenged the
administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday
> When did I say that I didn't read the original
> article? Why assume that my
> comments come from ignorance rather than an honest,
> intelligent
> interpretation of the statements at hand?
When did you say you read the original? The article
posted here wasn’t the original.
Continued….
-sm
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
