P2P-Zone - View Single Post

Ramona_A_Stone · 15-04-04, 10:17 PM

The Blame Game part was largely a response to daddydirt of course. To Fantom, lol, I'm quite aware of the definition of semantics, thanks.

I suppose I'll concede your point that the word "indication" is one that would be suitable to use in the event that one wanted to be totally unclear about what one was saying while skewing one's language to look superficially as if one was either totally stupid or trying, vainly, to lie one's ass off.

You say the memo "warned" but that it's acceptable that George says it "didn't indicate" a terrorist threat. Now, "terrorist threat" is a species of event, not a specific event. So can you come up with another example of how a thing can warn of a species of event without indicating that species of event?

If he thinks that saying the memo was insignificant is somehow more reassuring than the alternative, I have to question how he would interpret all future intelligence. Is he essentially telling us that he didn't put much stock in American intelligence agencies? That would be concerning because as we all know, intelligence is lost on an audience without the quotient to comprehend it. Perhaps he feels these little scraps of paper are the equivalent of National Enquirer headlines--and for all I know perhaps they are mixed in with warnings about batboys and double-headed alien babies... still, it seems he might concede that in retrospect, this one turned out to have a striking likeness to subsequent events.

Whatever the case, it leaves me with very little confidence in the man's discernment--not that he failed to discern the gravity of the warning then--but that he still fails to acknowledge that it should have had any gravity now.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and anyone would concede that...

...except, apparently, George, whose semantic approach seems in denial of that very aphorism.

I agree that this all may seem superficial and trivial too, but once you start giving someone this kind of semantic license what's next? Political Dadaism?

Actually, that would be refreshing at this point, at least we wouldn't have to sit around and wonder what the fuckers mean by their intentionally incomprehensible ululation....

15-04-04, 10:17 PM	#12
Ramona_A_Stone Formal Ball Proof Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 2,948	The Blame Game part was largely a response to daddydirt of course. To Fantom, lol, I'm quite aware of the definition of semantics, thanks. I suppose I'll concede your point that the word "indication" is one that would be suitable to use in the event that one wanted to be totally unclear about what one was saying while skewing one's language to look superficially as if one was either totally stupid or trying, vainly, to lie one's ass off. You say the memo "warned" but that it's acceptable that George says it "didn't indicate" a terrorist threat. Now, "terrorist threat" is a species of event, not a specific event. So can you come up with another example of how a thing can warn of a species of event without indicating that species of event? If he thinks that saying the memo was insignificant is somehow more reassuring than the alternative, I have to question how he would interpret all future intelligence. Is he essentially telling us that he didn't put much stock in American intelligence agencies? That would be concerning because as we all know, intelligence is lost on an audience without the quotient to comprehend it. Perhaps he feels these little scraps of paper are the equivalent of National Enquirer headlines--and for all I know perhaps they are mixed in with warnings about batboys and double-headed alien babies... still, it seems he might concede that in retrospect, this one turned out to have a striking likeness to subsequent events. Whatever the case, it leaves me with very little confidence in the man's discernment--not that he failed to discern the gravity of the warning then--but that he still fails to acknowledge that it should have had any gravity now. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and anyone would concede that... ...except, apparently, George, whose semantic approach seems in denial of that very aphorism. I agree that this all may seem superficial and trivial too, but once you start giving someone this kind of semantic license what's next? Political Dadaism? Actually, that would be refreshing at this point, at least we wouldn't have to sit around and wonder what the fuckers mean by their intentionally incomprehensible ululation....