-sm
--- Angus McFee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam Morris, teh most tragic casualty of teh right
> wing attack machine.
>
> Anyone ever heard that Space Ghost song about
> wanting Tardos to come to their senses?
>
> >--- Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >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?
> >
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >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]
