RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline

["Hargus, Diana" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike,

I owe you an apology for the last part of the email.  I was wrong to
have used the term knave, but I will stand by my "coward" remark with
this clarification/question:  I don't know the word I am looking for,
but would liken it asking this question - What are you afraid of?  That
is really what it looks like, almost like something is being defended
here.    More responses follow below. Again, I am sorry for the vitriol
I injected in there, it was not meant to be that way.

Diana



* -----Original Message-----
* From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
* [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
* Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 6:15 PM
* To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
* Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline
*
* On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Hargus, Diana wrote:
*
* > And you are doing to the facts what you accuse others of: searching
* > for the one exception to a story whereby you invalidate the
* entire study.
* > By utiilising your criteria, the world must be flat (
*
* That's not what I did and it isn't what I said I did.  I did
* a google search, not for exceptions, but for information, and
* that was the first thing that came up.
* 

But by couching the search request in certain terms, you fulfill you
search hopes, i.e.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=example+bush+atrocities
is much different than
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=example+bush+errors .
As I said, words mean things, and it is doubly so in polls and internet
searches.

*
* > The end result is that we can agree to disagree and keep an
* open mind
* > at the same time, there have been some discussions on here
* that have
* > swayed me to the other side, but only after study and
* analysis of the
* > subject at hand of the ideas brought in to the discussion.  
* It is my
* > personal belief that your keeping the closed mind attitude you have
*
* Sorry -- what is it that my mind is closed to?  I just said
* that I had previously simply accepted the usual story about
* Saddam paying off families of suicide bombers.  Now, for the
* first time, I have looked it up and I find that a group
* called PALF was making payments and that Saddam had given
* some money to PALF.  That's a little different than the
* original story.  So I don't know what to think.  That is an
* example open-mindedness, not closed-mindedness.
* 

Yes, I saw a few stories similar to that story too (in that it used
PALF), in about 10 pages of the search.  But what degree of relevance
does the story bear on the original facts as presented?  You don't
present your mindset to the list as Vern has done; he has read and
presented his synopsis of the articles in question, just as you had
requested.  Have you presented the same?

*
* > and nitpicking everything, you hope to either bore everyone
* to death
* > with minutiae, or so infuriate them so that you can sit
* back like any
* > good troll and say "I didn't do anything, they are the ones
* that are
* > getting upset."
*
* Today my primary interest was in getting people who claim
* that the media is biased to show a shred of evidence for
* their case.  Where are those shreds?  None have been
* forthcoming.  The reason for this is fairly obvious and well
* known but I will repeat it once more:  Everyone with strong
* views on an issue believes that the news media are biased
* against them.  There are studies, we have talked about them
* before.  It isn't nit picking but it does become boring when
* people repeatedly (and I've heard it hundreds if not
* thousands of times) want to pretend that they are able to
* detect bias in reporting without doing any systematic investigation.
* 

And in much the same way, you reword your responses without addressing
the original questions thus not adding value or weight to your
arguments.

*
* > These are the actions of a coward and a knave, and certainly not
* > worthy of a gentleman of learning as you purport (and I
* suspect may be true).
*
* Maybe this is "nitpicking" but can you name a specific action
* that you think was cowardly or knave-like?
* 

Not responding to questions at hand, but pulling a piece out of context
here and there and not responding to a whole question.  The ability to
address a subject as a whole demonstrates a knowledge of a subject.  

*
* > They say that words mean things and that you can tell a lot
* about a man
* > by his words and actions. As I only know you by your words
* on this list
* > and the way you use them (your "actions"), I have doubt to
* the veracity
* > of any of your statements;  I can also tell that you are a
* man of your
* > convictions and will hold steadfast and true to your
* beliefs.  This is
* > no different than those that hold to their faith in their
* particular
* > religions.
*
* The only belief I am holding to is that I don't know
* something to be true
* unless I can verify its truth with some kind of systematic
* investigation. 
* Evidence is the key to truth.  No matter how much evidence favors a
* certain point of view, I always reserve some doubt.  I don't believe
* *anything* at a *full* 100%.
* 

So wouldthat be Petitio Principii Fallacy or would that be Mistaking
Deductive Validity for Truth Fallacy (of which I,myself, am guilty of
having done on several occassions)?

*
* > Please do not take this as an attack,
*
* That's a good one!
* 

Yes, it kind of does look like an attack, sorry; just another reason not
to reply to things while on Vicodin after oral surgery... 

*
* > but as the observation and critique it is.  It does not matter the
* > manner of your response, as I shall continue to read and
* learn from all
* > information sources I come across.
*
* Your messages was so careful and systematic and
* well-researched (not). 
* In fact, it was just a spewfest empty of any real critical
* value.  If you
* want to do it right, just take something I wrote, quote it
* exactly, and
* tell me why it isn't true.

Define truth (absolutely, with no wiggle room) and I will


I have learned a lot from you Mike, and respect you as a person, but I
wish to understand you and where you are coming from.  You are one of
the few people in the world I have trouble understanding and that
bothers me... 
 
***********************
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: 
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for those to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion