Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Mike Miller wrote:
> >
> > > The thing that I find strange and frustrating is that you and Stephen 
> > > can't just accept what happened, as it obviously did happen.  Why 
> > > pretend? Why twist everything around and make excuses for this guy? 
> > > It's not as if he is your friend but you act like he is.
> >
> >
> > I think you are being really unfair here.  My problem isn't that I 
> > want O'Reilly to be found innocent at any costs.  But I do want to 
> > give him, or anyone else for that matter, the benefit of the doubt.  I 
> > think I am showing very reasonable skepticism with the evidence.  I'm 
> > not saying that the accusations are necessarily false, but I am saying 
> > that the evidence is weak.
>
>
> But that in itself is completely wrong and frankly insulting and 
> extremely frustrating for me.  I haev spent many hours writing to you 
> about this.  You repeat the same absurd conclusion about "weak 
> evidence". For the evidence of his claiming to have been a registered 
> independent when he was a registered Republican the evidence is about as 
> absolutely overwhelming and incontrovertible as you will ever get:  
> Photograph of his voter registration card.

Again, you are missing the point, which I have made again and again.  It 
is not that I necessarily disbelieve the assertions, but also asking the 
question - what does this evidence really show.  Also, I have said 
several times that the photograph of the voter registration card is 
actually not half bad evidence, certainly the best yet.

Finally, as to you statement that I don't read every word that you 
write, I think that it is fair on my part to ask for a dialogue, where I 
ask you to order your evidence from best to worst, and then I look at 
each piece of evidence one at a time.

> So you can just tell everyone that "the evidence was weak," but the 
> plain fact is that the evidence was not weak at all.  Not by any stretch 
> of the imagination.  You have no basis for saying that.

And I disagree.  I really think that the evidence is weak.


> > But also, when you make accusations against us like you did here, you 
> > really are playing a very unfair game.  And it ceases to be an 
> > intelligent and searching conversation, and becomes a war of who can 
> > present the best wrought insults.
>
>
> I don't think it is an insult to say that you are trying to defend 
> O'Reilly.  I don't know why, but you are working very hard on it.

I don't think it is that it is about O'Reilly in of itself that has made 
me argue this one to completion, but I do agree that in this case I am 
digging in my heel a lot more than usual.  But it is a matter of timing 
more than the issue itself.

Stephen

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