Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Was W Waldo?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 35 (422723)
09-18-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tal
09-18-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Tal, in the other thread:
Tal writes:
quote:
If you are going to claim someone was AWOL, as CBS did
Ahem.
Do you have any evidence that CBS actually used the term "AWOL" to refer to Bush's failure to fulfill his duty obligations? The corresponding article to the 60 Minutes report (here) never mentions the phrase. In Rather's interview with Barnes (here for Part I and here for Part II), that phrase is never used.
Again, I think we have a problem of terminology here: You are using the strict definition of "AWOL." Some in this discussion are using a more colloquial definition. The 60 Minutes report, however, never uses the term.
Do you have any evidence that CBS at any time referred to Bush's failure to complete his service as "AWOL"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tal, posted 09-18-2007 1:56 AM Tal has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 35 (423295)
09-21-2007 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tal
09-20-2007 6:32 AM


Re: Tal, in the other thread:
Tal writes:
quote:
As to the AWOL not being AWOL, the definition of not fulfilling your commitment is the DEFINITION of AWOL.
No, it isn't. Now you're trying to have it both ways. First you said that CBS claimed he was AWOL and wondered why they never called you to look up certain documents.
But it turns out that CBS never claimed he was AWOL. Therefore, why would such documents be in existence?
AWOL is not the same thing as desertion, for example. If you're gone for less than 24 hours, you're considered "failure to go," not AWOL.
But again, there's still the problem of your charge that CBS said Bush was AWOL when they never brought up the term.
quote:
Either way, once you are discharged....
You are assuming the discharge was valid. There is evidence that it was falsified.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tal, posted 09-20-2007 6:32 AM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024