mutilated misquotes
from Michael Hipp's 15 Jun 2005 classic prose
may follow:
" I think the probability of this being true is very low (but not zero).
Agree.
" If only for the reason that whatever twisted objective was being served
" could likely have been accomplished by something far less complicated
" and risky.
Agree. But here is one quote from the upi story that caught my eye:
'Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range
of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.'
Ok, the guy appears to be making a highly significant allegation and
he seems to be claiming to have the facts and a competent and
comprehensive interpretation of them. Why didn't he put all of his
cards face up on the table? [If he has done this, preferably on the
web somewhere, and anyone knows where, I'd appreciate a pointer.]
And, in some ways more to the point, why wasn't he _asked_ to do
that?
For the record, Texas A&M University has, <grin>, 'disavowed all
knowledge'
http://www.tamu.edu/00/start/DrGates-statement.html
but I don't see much of significance in their statement. They don't
ask for the facts, either.
" Such "conspiracy theories" are generally dismissed. Even though history
" shows us that conspiracies do happen and might even be said to be common.
SOP, as you say, and it's rare to get one out in the open even
partially and then not often until long after the events. Partly, I
think that is exacerbated because the media rarely, afaict, does any
research but instead seeks comment from opposing authority - which,
if the conpiracy is real (and many aren't, I imagine), would tend to
be one of, or someone close to or in a position to profit from, the
conspirators themselves. What would they be expected to say?
[...]
" Rule #1: The government always lies.
" (Sometimes in minor ways and insignificant spinning. But there will
" never be a case where they tell the unencumbered truth. This rule BTW is
" unaffected by the outcome of any election.)
Rule #2: In the almost unimaginable event that they do tell the
unencumbered truth, see Rule #1. :-)
At one time, I also held this point of view. Now I think that to
accuse a politician of lying is to insult the concepts both of truth
and of falsehood. I am now of the opinion that they neither lie nor
speak truth (and the idea that these choices might exist or be
different in any way never enters their minds); expediency is their
only standard for acceptable speech, or acceptable action for that
matter - and I think that's much worse.
" Note that Martha Stewart went to jail for telling lies of less
" consequence than almost all of our politicians tell anytime there is a
" microphone near.
Good point.
R
--
http://www.quen.net
"Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and
acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government
stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it.
No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and
no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
