Re: Expanding Halliburton probe confirms Bush administration is corrupt

From: Frank Bemelman (f.bemelmanx_at_xs4all.invalid.nl)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:54:27 +0100

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:2faao0111gfdgmk609aeae168jslbtfvoa@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:55:48 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
> <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
>
> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
> >bericht news:g6k8o0d2hlgs2hetqeie24a9boiblnthk3@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:49:59 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
> >> <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef
in
> >> >bericht news:pf38o05gr5h0fj9jvt6mtu8gdeeq74bv1u@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:19:53 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
> >> >> <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com>
schreef
> >in
> >> >> >bericht news:cj08o09mapbsp9vb1gmlfsj2mkg29cl58p@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
> >> >> >> <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that
> >distinction.
> >> >> >> One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of
Tonkin
> >> >> >> fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks,
pardons,
> >> >> >> perjury.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's 4 smoke screens. Okay, you could argue over 'most corrupt'
> >> >> >or just plain vanilla 'corrupt'.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Seems that any suggestion you don't like is a "smoke screen." Read a
> >> >> little history some time, and put what's happening today in a more
> >> >> longitudinal perspective.
> >> >
> >> >I see it as smoke screens because you evade the topic, dragging
> >> >in other cases. Now you do it again - I'm advised to start reading
> >> >history. It's just that you don't even realize all your smoke
> >> >screens.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The subject (before you changed it) was "most corrupt administration
> >> in US history". How can you evaluate a statement like that without
> >> considering "other cases", namely all the previous Presidents? How can
> >> you evaluate "most corrupt in US history" if you know nothing about
> >> history?
> >>
> >> That doesn't make sense.
> >
> >You could also read 'most' in a different meaning. Like newspapers
> >headlines. Like the soup you ate yesterday, which was most delicious,
> >no doubt. It's just to add some drama, to draw attention. Not a
> >strict claim, I would think.
>
> "Most" means "most" to me; it demands comparison. What does it mean to
> you? Is there any difference, in a circuit, between a high voltage and
> the highest voltage?

Main Entry: 2most
Function: adverb
1 : to the greatest or highest degree -- often used with an adjective or
adverb to form the superlative <the most challenging job he ever had>
2 : to a very great degree <was most persuasive>

In the given context, I stick to [2]: to a very great degree

Anyway, the dictionairy lists a nice number of meanings. Your comment
that '"Most" means "most" to me' is a too simple shortcut. And please
try to understand that analogies in general only makes things fuzzier,
and in this case, your analogy of high voltages is just another smoke
screen.

> >You said that the modified subject does not make it any more
> >sensible. That's a meaningless remark. I can only guess what you
> >mean, it could be anything:
> >
> >1) it was very sensible, but not a bit more
> >2) it was sensible, but not a bit more
> >3) it was not sensible, and has not become a bit more sensible
> >4) it was absolutely not sensible, and still is
>
> It means that you can't sensibly alter my answer by changing the
> question after the fact.

Another escape. Why don't you openly refuse to answer; I could
have some respect for that.

> >That's what I call smoke screens. You create the illusion that
> >you are participating in the discussion, but in fact nothing is
> >revealed or said.
> >
> >And snipping my question "You don't trust the information in the
> >links provided by Win?" instead of giving a short but meaningful
> >answer, well, there you go, it only thickens your smoke screens.
> >
> >I may need to catch up on history,
>
> Please do; it puts all this shrieking into perspective.
>
> > but I'm not entirely stupid.
>
> >So, here's my question again:
> >
> >You don't trust the information in the links provided by Win?
> >
>
>
> The opinions of the World Socialist Web Site and one Bunny Greenhouse
> are hardly convincing evidence of corruption.
>
> Even Ms G's position is...
>
> "She says she is not alleging any impropriety by President Bush or
> Vice President Cheney.
>
> "None whatsoever," she says.
>
> So where's the administration corruption?

Right under your nose. But perhaps you are hiding something
yourself. 

-- 
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)