Hi, Monday, December 1, 2003, 8:43:57 PM, you wrote:
> Rumsfield speak deleted, because Rumsfield doesn't understand it either<g>. Oh, no! the Rumsfeld speak has come back again - must be something wrong with my computer. As a matter of fact, I understand it (I think), and I'm sure he does. I imagine the reason he won the foot-in-mouth award is that it takes several attempts for most people to understand it, and to most people hearing it for the first time, rather than reading it, it would probably sound like complete gibberish. It's certainly not plain English. I think he did speak these words, at a press conference or something, so he can be forgiven for some lack of clarity - unedited impromptu speech is bound to look bad in print. It's amusing, but rather unfair, to mock politicians for it. Still, if the calorification is excessive, toleration-wise, exkitchenate yourself, as Alexander Haig might have put it. A written version would have left out a lot of words. As much as I dislike what he stands for, Rumsfeld is not a complete idiot. -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don't know we don't know." ---Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html)
