Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Four More Years...
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 105 (89341)
02-28-2004 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Quetzal
02-28-2004 5:34 PM


Uh... I had a widdle pwoblem with my spehwing, I weally meant whittle.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Quetzal, posted 02-28-2004 5:34 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Quetzal, posted 02-29-2004 11:41 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 105 (89382)
02-29-2004 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Silent H
02-28-2004 11:23 PM


Keeps going and going and going...
Hi holmes,
holmes writes:
quote:
All I said was that for me your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions.
But, but, but... Why the... You understand this is the answer I was looking for?
I *did* say this. Calling your evidence inuendo and so forth isn't questioning your evidence. It's questioning the relationship between your evidence and your conclusions. For example, when you say that Bush is a friend of Lays and I call it inuendo, it's only inuendo in relation to your conclusion that there's some political hanky-panky going on. As I've already said, the surprise would have been had the former governor of Texas *not* known the head of one of Texas's largest companies.
You continue to bewilder me with your fantasies. It's almost as if you're living in some alternative universe observing the behavior of a bizarro Percy, and then coming here to report on what he's done. I guess all I can do is continue to set the facts before you.
quote:
Of course I didn't look at your links.
Then your statement about your conclusion above is meaningless as you were clearly unaware of evidence before it came up,...
I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are. To say this you have to ignore the facts of the thread. You made some vague assertions in Message 22, I poked around on the web, read a couple articles, and replied with a link to one of them in Message 24 asking if this was what you were talking about. You confirmed this, and then you provided a specific list of assertions and evidence in Message 33 that contained pretty much the same information as the link I provided. That was the point where I concluded it was, in my opinion, insufficient justification for further investigation or interest. I believe I said I would have felt sleazy reaching conclusions based on what you'd presented.
...what was being discussed when it came up, and never looked at it once it was presented to you. You rip on creationists who exhibit this kind of intellectual laziness, yet continue to state conclusions... shame on you.
No, shame on you. I *never* "rip on creationists" who don't read links. The guidelines encourage people to make arguments in their posts and not to debate by link, and I wrote the guidelines, so once again you are clearly making it up.
No one has the power here to dump long reading assignments on other people, and then berate them when the assignments are ignored. In fact, though I have a hard time following this advice myself, short posts that are to the point are to be encouraged. If there is an apropos link or two that you can include then that's great, but firing off link blitzkriegs is not a form of debate to be encouraged.
I guess if someone were a news junkie, or if some issue particularly interested them, then they might go off and read 5 or 10 articles about the same thing. But most people don't do this, and I'm certainly not going to, and certainly not about something that from the first couple articles I can already tell I'm not interested.
I'd rather be that than a person who makes statements like "your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions" when I never looked at and never would look at (once actually presented) that person's evidence.
I already said this was wrong once, but since you state it twice I'll tell you it's wrong twice.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 11:23 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 02-29-2004 12:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 105 (89402)
02-29-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
02-28-2004 11:25 PM


Yeah, I knew that's what you meant. When I read the line however, I had this incredibly vivid memory of my (then) 5-year-old daughter coming up to me and saying, "Daddy, the dog just widdled on my shoes". Since that was so strongly evocative of the way the thread has been going for the last four or five pages, I simply couldn't resist. Don't mind me. Please carry on...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 11:25 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 105 (89412)
02-29-2004 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
02-29-2004 7:57 AM


hot potato...
quote:
I *did* say this.
The WAY you said it was NOT clear TO ME if you meant because the evidence was fallacious, or if it did not add up to the conclusion. That is why I said (more than once) I did not understand what you said, and wanted clarification.
For a guy that keeps telling me to read through the messages, you sure do a poor job of it.
You can say I'm an idiot for not understanding what you meant the first time, but you're the one causing problems and prolonging argument by refusing to answer me when I said I did not understand what you meant.
That made it look like a dodge, and smell like a dodge. Maybe it wasn't, but what it was was not clear... and I SAID SO.
quote:
I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are. To say this you have to ignore the facts of the thread. You made some vague assertions in Message 22, I poked around on the web, read a couple articles, and replied with a link to one of them in Message 24 asking if this was what you were talking about. You confirmed this, and then you provided a specific list of assertions and evidence in Message 33 that contained pretty much the same information as the link I provided.
You are either making a rather large error, or you are being dishonest. I'll assume the error... Again, YOU should reread the thread.
Me#22: I question TC if he and Republicans are really going to go get everyone involved with Enron corrpution, or if it's going to be stopped before it hits Bush.
You#24: Like you said. You presented links regarding what you think I implied in my post #22 to TC.
TC#25: He says if I have evidence for what I implied in #22 then I should present it.
Me#32: Reponding to YOU (#24), I said what you were talking about was NOT primarily what I was talking about, but please hang on because I would get you info.
Me#33: In response to TC(#25), I asked which evidence he wanted me to get for him? It was not supposed to be THE evidence, they were questions which facts he wanted to see evidence for. I also state clearly that I am only talking about evidence that suggests an investigation should take place, and NOT that their actions were necessarily anything more than unethical.
You#35: You respond to my post (#33) for TC (me asking what evidence he wants), and say you could not draw a conclusion from what I presented there...
Me#36: I respond to YOU (#35), saying hold your horses I have yet to assemble the evidence yet, and I'd have it by the weekend.
You#37: Still not waiting for the evidence, you start lambasting me and said you found stuff on the internet saying what I said, ironically before you could even know what I had to say. In fact you should have already known what you found in #24 was only a SMALL PART. That is what I said directly to you in #32.
Me#40: Now pissed off that you have continued to insult me while I said I was still getting evidence to make the case I was talking about, I ran out and started getting them before the weekend. THIS IS THE FIRST POST WHERE I STARTED PRESENTING THE CASE I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
My guess is you didn't even read that post because if you did you'd know you didn't have to go to all the links.
I said there was one with a good overview of where all the evidence fit into place. Or maybe you could have gone to Waxman's link where he actually answers the incredulity posed in your link of #24? After all he's the guy actually doing the investigation... not CBS. The amount of links I posted were for background material and to show you a small sample of what is out there.
Or you could have gone later to the smoking gun link I gave. That was three links.
quote:
No, shame on you. I *never* "rip on creationists" who don't read links.
No, you rip on creationists that do not do their homework or avoid counterevidence when it is presented to them, and still make conclusive statements. As I said, I pointed out which were the few important links to go to. It wasn't a long reading assignment.
quote:
I already said this was wrong once, but since you state it twice I'll tell you it's wrong twice.
So now I'll tell you twice, you have everything skewed. I set out in my post #32 that I was not primarily discussing what your link in #24 was talking about, and I never built the case I was talking about (including the full nature of the evidence) until post #40.
Post #33 had nothing to do with you, nor did it present anything except maybe implications of the type of evidence I could provide or TC could go looking for to start his own investigation.
Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking you were slamming the idea that I could find such evidence that would prove the points listed in 33. But your mistake was thinking 33 was talking to you, setting out the full nature of the issue, and presenting the full evidence for it.
I might add that you continually painted me into a position (apparently assuming) that I cared about that as a MAJOR issue for the election, rather than simply pointing out a hypocrisy in TC's position, and that I was drawing a conclusion greater than it warranted an investigation (which is what TC had been talking about).
So hot potato back at ya.
(note:reedited for perhaps greater clarity)
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-29-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 02-29-2004 7:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-29-2004 6:56 PM Silent H has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 105 (89447)
02-29-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
02-29-2004 12:59 PM


From the sublime...
Hi holmes,
You *do* realize, I hope, that this is not the most brilliant topic for a conversation. If I had already installed the rating system we would, I think, have long ago found ourselves relegated to a remedial forum.
There's a UBB code that makes it easy to link to specific messages, especially if they're in the same thread. If you feel like using it, all you have to do is say something like [msg=33] and the board software will automatically produce a link that looks like this: Message 33
Me#33: In response to TC, I asked which evidence he wanted me to get for him? It was not supposed to be THE evidence...
Here's the top half of that message. Sure looks like evidence expressed as a list of rhetorical questions to me. Plus it recapitulates the information from the article I linked you to in Message 24:
holmes in Message 33 writes:
quote:
If you have evidence, then present it.
What evidence do you need:
1) That Bush was close friends with Ken Lay, using his personal jet during his pres campaign, and then lying after the Enron scandal that he didn't really know a man he had previously called "Kenny Boy"?
2) That Congress is seeking evidence, which Cheney refuses to hand over, and that it is now going to the SC?
3) That Scalia has refused to recuse himself from the SC case mentioned above, despite going on a hunting trip with Cheney, funded by an energy company that may very well be one of the companies in the very evidence he is to judge whether should be released or not to congress?
4) That when the energy crisis hit CA, and it turned out that the energy companies who "helped out" actually scammed CA, Bush refused to open an investigation/prosecution?
I admit that ThingsChange assessment, which you actually quoted next, struck a chord with me:
ThingsChange in Message 25 writes:
Otherwise, you are just reeking of speculative conspiracy theories, as usual, when it comes to politics.
Moving on:
Me#40: Now pissed off that you have continued to insult me...
I notice you don't provide any excerpts of me insulting you.
No, you rip on creationists that do not do their homework or avoid counterevidence when it is presented to them, and still make conclusions.
At least you're describing me instead of bizarro Percy, but now you're tied up in a false analogy. I'm not avoiding homework or counterevidence, I'm attempting to disengage from the discussion. You'll never find me hounding someone to discuss something they've made clear they don't want to discuss. This has got to be about the weirdest discussion I've ever had, but it sure beats the alternative. Unfortunately, I can't put it off anymore, so back to work!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 02-29-2004 12:59 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2004 1:20 AM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 105 (89497)
03-01-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
02-29-2004 6:56 PM


Ahhhhh... Back from the Oscars... Back to a saga as epic as LoTR...
quote:
Here's the top half of that message. Sure looks like evidence expressed as a list of rhetorical questions to me.
Okay? So you made a mistake? I did not mean it to be rhetorical, though I did mean it to be suggestive of what evidence I could start bringing back to him.
Remember I had already told YOU in the post right before this, Message 32, that I was going to get information for you and it was not going to focus primarily on what your link was talking about.
And I also told you in my very next post, Message 36, after you jumped the gun and addressed 33 which was not replying to you, that I had still not gathered my evidence yet.
So why you felt after post #36, that post #33 represented rhetorical questions outlining the entire issue, as well as the totality of the evidence... what am I supposed to say?
Perhaps in trying to disengage from a subject you are not interested in, you made a mistake?
quote:
I notice you don't provide any excerpts of me insulting you.
I didn't think I had to, but maybe I misunderstood what you meant so here is what you said, and I took as insulting...
From Message 35
1) "I do like to think that when I make up my mind that it's from accurate information dispassionately gathered and analyzed."
***I took this as an insult, as it appears to suggest that I have made up my mind from inaccurate information, gathered and analyzed emotionally. Am I wrong?
2) "I'd feel pretty sleazy reaching a conclusion based on what you presented."
***I took this as an insult, as it appears to suggest that I have come to a conclusion which a rational person should feel sleazy about. Since I apparently do not, does that not make me sleazy, or that I am wrong for not feeling this way?
From Message 37
3) "Discussions about what someone actually meant are pretty pointless. If you want to believe that's an accurate assessment of your post then go ahead, but you might want to follow the suggestion to read your post yourself."
plus
"No one suggested or even hinted that the investigation of the Enron collapse should have limits. I hope, and I'm sure ThingsChange hopes, that investigators follow the evidence wherever it leads."
***I was insulted as these when combined, appeared to tell me I cannot understand what I wrote or someone else wrote... but you can tell whatever anyone else wrote.
4) "I found articles recounting the same things you said, some of them using the same tone. I posted a link to a more balanced one from CBS MarketWatch"
***I found this insulting as it appears to suggest that what I was saying had a tone which suggested it was not balanced... of course ignoring that I already said I hadn't given you ANY EVIDENCE or COMPLETE ARGUMENT yet.
Did I read something into it?
quote:
I'm not avoiding homework or counterevidence, I'm attempting to disengage from the discussion.
Yet you were in reality disengaging before I had presented evidence or the full nature of my argument (the issue), and attempting to ride out on a high horse (leaving me as the "sleaze" willing to accept purely emotional evidence and analysis).
quote:
You *do* realize, I hope, that this is not the most brilliant topic for a conversation.
If the kinks of what happened between us in this thread get worked out, then it will have at least been useful if not brilliant. Maybe it could even stand as an example to others where miscommunication can lead.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-01-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-29-2004 6:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 03-05-2004 8:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 105 (89917)
03-02-2004 9:45 PM


Is there another TC lurking around in this forum or something?
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-02-2004 9:48 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 98 of 105 (89918)
03-02-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by TrueCreation
03-02-2004 9:45 PM


Ahh TC, yes they should clarify that. The TC referred to on this thread is a poster by the name of ThingsChange.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2004 9:45 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 105 (90687)
03-05-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Silent H
03-01-2004 1:20 AM


I continue my descent into vapidity...
holmes writes:
quote:
Here's the top half of that message. Sure looks like evidence expressed as a list of rhetorical questions to me.
Okay? So you made a mistake? I did not mean it to be rhetorical, though I did mean it to be suggestive of what evidence I could start bringing back to him.
Okay, so you misexpressed yourself.
And I also told you in my very next post, Message 36, after you jumped the gun and addressed 33 which was not replying to you, that I had still not gathered my evidence yet.
This is true, but it appeared to me that you were just trying to make it seem like the issue had more layers then it really did, the trademark of the master conspiracist. And that suspicion turned out to be the case when your later summary in Message 44 said pretty the same thing, just reexpressed.
Perhaps in trying to disengage from a subject you are not interested in, you made a mistake?
No, my mistake happened earlier.
I didn't think I had to, but maybe I misunderstood what you meant so here is what you said, and I took as insulting...
From Message 35
1) "I do like to think that when I make up my mind that it's from accurate information dispassionately gathered and analyzed."
***I took this as an insult, as it appears to suggest that I have made up my mind from inaccurate information, gathered and analyzed emotionally. Am I wrong?
No, you're not. If you don't want people to think this of you, then why churn out posts like Message 33? If that's your idea of how to come across seriously, then I can only ask how one is supposed to tell you apart from a conspiracy specialist.
2) "I'd feel pretty sleazy reaching a conclusion based on what you presented."
***I took this as an insult, as it appears to suggest that I have come to a conclusion which a rational person should feel sleazy about. Since I apparently do not, does that not make me sleazy, or that I am wrong for not feeling this way?
To me you seem too ready to leap to conclusions.
From Message 37
3) "Discussions about what someone actually meant are pretty pointless. If you want to believe that's an accurate assessment of your post then go ahead, but you might want to follow the suggestion to read your post yourself."
plus
"No one suggested or even hinted that the investigation of the Enron collapse should have limits. I hope, and I'm sure ThingsChange hopes, that investigators follow the evidence wherever it leads."
***I was insulted as these when combined, appeared to tell me I cannot understand what I wrote or someone else wrote... but you can tell whatever anyone else wrote.
To me it appeared, and still appears, that you were attempting to force interpretations on your posts which did not make sense.
4) "I found articles recounting the same things you said, some of them using the same tone. I posted a link to a more balanced one from CBS MarketWatch"
***I found this insulting as it appears to suggest that what I was saying had a tone which suggested it was not balanced... of course ignoring that I already said I hadn't given you ANY EVIDENCE or COMPLETE ARGUMENT yet.
I'm sure you think you're balanced, but you didn't come across that way. Any argument you might make about balance is contradicted by the incredible persistence and sheer doggedness with which you pursued someone on a topic they weren't interested in discussing, and by the sensitivity you showed toward any rejection of your ideas.
Yet you were in reality disengaging before I had presented evidence or the full nature of my argument...
I had already heard enough. I thought that was clear. You just don't take no for an answer.
I hope no one's reading this and that they're investing their time more wisely, like by reading the Kendemyer threads.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2004 1:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 03-06-2004 12:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 105 (90717)
03-06-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
03-05-2004 8:08 PM


You do continue your descent into inanity...
quote:
Okay, so you misexpressed yourself.
I assume the smiley at the end of that meant it was a joke... I hope that meant it was a joke.
quote:
it appeared to me that you were just trying to make it seem like the issue had more layers then it really did, the trademark of the master conspiracist. And that suspicion turned out to be the case when your later summary in Message 44 said pretty the same thing, just reexpressed.
So you misread a post, then read into the next. Sweet. And of course your suspicion did not turn out to be the case in the summary of message 44. Just because the list of points is similar that does not mean I had not presented EVIDENCE for those points and THEIR CONTEXT between those two points.
And while I am uncertain what you mean by "layers", there were more issues. It was not about the collapse of Enron and it was not merely about formulation of NATIONAL energy policy (which are the Cheney papers).
quote:
If that's your idea of how to come across seriously, then I can only ask how one is supposed to tell you apart from a conspiracy specialist.
How about by reading the evidence I present? Again, it was not a huge reading assignment, though it did show that there was a lot out there.
If my tone turns off people from reading the evidence, well then that really is NOT my problem. Especially in this case... which I'll explain later when I discuss your labelling me a conspiracy theorist.
quote:
To me you seem too ready to leap to conclusions... To me it appeared, and still appears, that you were attempting to force interpretations on your posts which did not make sense.
I would say the same for you. I would add that you jump to conclusions BEFORE reading anything, and never bother correcting your assumption (you were still mentioning the collapse of Enron well after 34 which should have straightened you out that was NOT what I was discussing).
quote:
I'm sure you think you're balanced, but you didn't come across that way. Any argument you might make about balance is contradicted by the incredible persistence and sheer doggedness with which you pursued someone on a topic they weren't interested in discussing, and by the sensitivity you showed toward any rejection of your ideas.
The irony here is that this is your response to my telling you why I felt you were insulting me before I had ever presented the evidence. That means your insults came before you told me you were no longer interested, as well as before I ever doggedly pursued anything. I guess you knew this in advance, so you could go ahead and slam be about something else?
I feel pretty vindicated that you insulted me, and point out once again that is why I hurried up to actually deliver the evidence sooner than I was planning. You couldn't stop slamming me, even as I asked you to hold your horses.
quote:
I had already heard enough. I thought that was clear. You just don't take no for an answer.
How Percy? How could you have heard enough when all I had ever done is wrote one post to TC asking what evidence he wanted, and one post to you saying it was about more than you outlined and I would get you evidence later?
This is so much BS Percy.
The other irony here is that you label me the conspiracy theorist. Heck, all I said is that there was a lot of evidence that suggested a greater investigation was warranted, NOT that I KNEW anything illegal actually did happen. I also showed what people who were interested in Cheney's papers thought they might find. Ooooooo... what a wild man!
The irony being not just that I was not advancing anything outlandish, but if you actually looked at the evidence you would notice that YOU are the conspiracy theorist. Somehow you feel confident asserting that what was being mentioned was just usual persecution of a sitting president? For THAT to be TRUE, and the evidence have come from such a mechanism would require a much vaster conspiracy than anything I was talking about.
Sometimes the guy screaming nothing is going on, and avoiding looking at evidence to the contrary, is just as big a conspiracy theorist as the guy saying something is going on. Sometimes bad things DO happen.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 03-05-2004 8:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 03-06-2004 8:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 105 (90787)
03-06-2004 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
03-06-2004 12:30 AM


Abandon hope...
holmes writes:
I assume the smiley at the end of that meant it was a joke... I hope that meant it was a joke.
No, the smiley was because I mimicked you. Regardless of intent, your Message 33 reads like an enumeration of evidence phrased as rhetorical questions.
holmes writes:
So you misread a post, then read into the next. Sweet. And of course your suspicion did not turn out to be the case in the summary of message 44. Just because the list of points is similar that does not mean I had not presented EVIDENCE for those points and THEIR CONTEXT between those two points.
I never questioned your evidence. I questioned your conclusions. They seemed premature, and they still seem premature.
And while I am uncertain what you mean by "layers", there were more issues.
Ah, the trademark of the master conspiracy theorist - there's always more to delve into.
It was not about the collapse of Enron...
I never said it was - this was your confusion.
How about by reading the evidence I present?
Again, I never questioned your evidence. I assumed all along that what you said was accurate that Bush knew Lay, that Cheney hadn't turned over requested papers, that Scalia hadn't recused himself, that Lay had helped define US energy policy, and so forth. I questioned your conclusions based upon this evidence that something improper was going on. I believe I said at one point that this seemed like the normal amount of harassment of a sitting president. I believe I compared it to White Water, which in the end after all the noise and attention came to very little as far as the Clintons.
Again, it was not a huge reading assignment, though it did show that there was a lot out there.
Yeah, right, mister conspiracy theorist. Look, maybe someday this will turn into the modern day equivalent of Irangate or something and then you can brag about how out in front you were on this issue, but right now this is a mole hill, possibly an anthill.
If my tone turns off people from reading the evidence, well then that really is NOT my problem.
Your tone is intemperate and immoderate, and it makes your conclusions appear ill-considered. If you don't care about that, then I guess it really isn't your problem.
I would say the same for you. I would add that you jump to conclusions BEFORE reading anything...
This is a pretty weird thing to say. People make decisions all the time that they're not interested in pursuing something further, which naturally precludes reading or learning anything more about it. Everyone else isn't interested in all the same things you are. All I did was inquire about what you were vaguely hinting at in one of your messages, and once I confirmed it was Enron-gate I wasn't interested anymore. I'm sorry you didn't like my characterization of your approach to drawing conclusions as sleazy, but that doesn't obligate me to discuss the issue further with you.
The irony being not just that I was not advancing anything outlandish, but if you actually looked at the evidence you would notice that YOU are the conspiracy theorist.
Yeah, right. And what's my theory? Politics as usual.
Sometimes the guy screaming nothing is going on, and avoiding looking at evidence to the contrary...
I didn't say nothing is going on, though I am screaming, "Help, I'm being pursued by a maniac!"
I said there wasn't enough information to draw any conclusions. I said I hoped investigators followed the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads.
--Percy
[text=wheat][Fix redundant quote, rephrase a rough spot. --Percy][/text]
[This message has been edited by Percy, 03-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 03-06-2004 12:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 03-06-2004 2:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 105 (90821)
03-06-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
03-06-2004 8:37 AM


four more years! four more years!
quote:
Regardless of intent, your Message 33 reads like an enumeration of evidence phrased as rhetorical questions.
I've never met a person so focused on a singular post not even made to him, that he ignores every other post surrounding it, including posts directly to him that state I have yet to enumerate my evidence.
quote:
I never questioned your evidence. I questioned your conclusions.
What conclusion Percy? That there was evidence to merit an investigation? I am still wondering why that is such a strong conclusion to you. But either way I could not tell which you were questioning, said this to you, and also said if it was just the conclusion of illegality then there was no problem.
quote:
Ah, the trademark of the master conspiracy theorist - there's always more to delve into.
I guess that makes scientists master conspiracy theorists? Perc, all I said is that there were more issues... "layers" suggests greater detail of the same issue which when peeled away will reveal "the truth".
quote:
I believe I said at one point that this seemed like the normal amount of harassment of a sitting president. I believe I compared it to White Water, which in the end after all the noise and attention came to very little as far as the Clintons.
Yeah, except the ISSUE I AM TALKING ABOUT started BEFORE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT!!! When will you get that through your head?
A real energy crisis did occur in CA Perc (before Bush). It really got investigated, eventually by Bush's own appointees (after getting into office), and Enron got fingered as a culprit in energy fraud related to deregulation. Yet during all of this and after, Bush refused to do anything about it (blaming Democrats in CA for mismanagement... which was pretty well proven untrue by the FERC), and allowed Enron (at that point a culprit in energy fraud related to deregulation) into meetings to formulate a national energy policy centering on deregulation!
If this does not suggest ANY improprieties to you, particularly when the company and man in question was WELL KNOWN to be one of Bush's largest contributors, then I seriously question your judgement. Whether anything rose to the level of crime is reasonably questionable, and why I said it needs an INVESTIGATION before conclusions can be made. But that their actions were at the very least unethical is pretty much without question, and why an investigation ought to be made.
quote:
Yeah, right, mister conspiracy theorist. Look, maybe someday this will turn into the modern day equivalent of Irangate or something and then you can brag about how out in front you were on this issue, but right now this is a mole hill, possibly an anthill.
I love your shift to ad hominem now that you have no real cover. How hard is it for you to admit that you were simply wrong?
My guess is the energy crisis issue, and energy deregulation issue will not turn into anything very big. Investigations into matters more important than that are being quashed, so why would it make it anywhere?
And absolutely, much larger issues have occured in this nation to make those issues very small in the overall scheme of things. That's why I ONLY BROUGHT IT UP WHEN TC DISCUSSED REPUBLICAN INTEREST IN PROSECUTING ENRON!!!! All I did was call bullshit on that remark... that's it.
quote:
Your tone is intemperate and immoderate, and it makes your conclusions appear ill-considered.
I would prefer the appearance of such, than to actually make conclusions that are ill-considered, as you continue to do. I may be rough around the collar, but at least in this I am right, and you have used NOTHING but ad hominem to show otherwise.
quote:
All I did was inquire about what you were vaguely hinting at in one of your messages, and once I confirmed it was Enron-gate I wasn't interested anymore.
Your faux disinterest grates on my nerves. You asked what I was hinting at to someone else, and I said it was not the issue that you were hinting at (at least not primarily that), and would get you more info.
IF you were DISINTERESTED in the issue, that was the time to reply and say NO THANKS. INSTEAD, you don't reply to that post, and instead reply to my post to someone else in a way that showed NO LACK OF INTEREST AT ALL. You began criticizing what you thought I was talking about!
You keep doing this on political topics with me and it IS disingenuous. A simple I am not interested, or no reply at all is the true sign of disinterest. Attacking someone when they are not even talking to you is NOT.
quote:
Yeah, right. And what's my theory? Politics as usual.
Exactly. Politics as usual. So simple. But how is that any different from a person thinking, corruption as usual?
The devil is in the details Percy. Your "politics as usual" becomes a bit more complicated once you start looking at the evidence in the actual timeline. The conspiracy required to have manufactured the events and the evidence would be so massive and complex that the term byzantine would not do it justice. In fact for some reason Ken Lay, George Bush, and their own staffs were either complicit, or duped into the conspiracy.
Truly the simplest explanation is GWB looked the other way as deregulated businesses continued to give CA the hotfoot. Granted he may not have understood how bad it was going to end up, and how far his friend was involved or was going to be implicated. During this time of ignoring the crisis and even after some initial implications of wrongdoing (again maybe he didn't realize how bad it was going to get) he included Enron in discussions on energy policy.
Your theory... people make stuff up to hurt the president, just seems foolish and conspiratorial in the true sense. You'd rather believe in a vast conspiracy of political rivals and media to invent evidence, than the president made a mistake regarding a friend.
YOU are the conspiracy theorist on this one.
quote:
I didn't say nothing is going on, though I am screaming, "Help, I'm being pursued by a maniac!"
That's my line. I was talking to TC, not you.
Then you come in and start attacking me without any let up, even as I repeat I haven't made my point yet. Then you start acting like I was the guy who started our conversation, all the while CONTINUING to lob criticisms at my earlier posts!
All for want of the ability to say you made a mistake...
quote:
I said there wasn't enough information to draw any conclusions. I said I hoped investigators followed the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads.
Yeah that's the same thing I said in Message 32, my first response to your inquiry. It was also what I was saying to TC... with the implication that real investigations into Enron might end up hitting Bush, and wondering if Republicans were really ready to go "wherever and to whomever it leads."
Not sure how many times I must say that the ONLY conclusion I am making is that an investigation is warranted, before you get off your high horse.
However it is true that the amount of evidence regarding Enron and deregulation issues is more than Republicans had with whitewater, and promises to net more than the indiscretion of a blowjob...
Then again Bush and Cheney joining the mile high club aboard Airforce One by having a swordfight in Ken Lay's mouth, might be the only thing capable of drawing the interest of apathetic americans.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-06-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 03-06-2004 8:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 03-06-2004 4:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 103 of 105 (90828)
03-06-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Silent H
03-06-2004 2:17 PM


I continue down the road to perdition
holmes writes:
quote:
Regardless of intent, your Message 33 reads like an enumeration of evidence phrased as rhetorical questions.
I've never met a person so focused on a singular post not even made to him, that he ignores every other post surrounding it, including posts directly to him that state I have yet to enumerate my evidence.
Uh, holmes, Message 33 was the point at which I knew this wasn't an issue that interested me. Despite all your protests, your subsequent messages merely reiterated Message 33 and contained nothing additional of significance. I'm not interested in this issue. No one else here has indicated any interest. Even the democratic candidates haven't raised this issue. Even you say it's not in your top ten. You come off like a conspiracy theorist to me, and I'm not the only one who has said as much. And now you pursue me endlessly on this. You are one weird dude.
holmes writes:
quote:
I believe I said at one point that this seemed like the normal amount of harassment of a sitting president. I believe I compared it to White Water, which in the end after all the noise and attention came to very little as far as the Clintons.
Yeah, except the ISSUE I AM TALKING ABOUT started BEFORE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT!!! When will you get that through your head?
Uh, holmes, White Water occurred before Clinton became president. And when it occurred isn't an issue anyway. You seem to be able to find something to get upset about in every paragraph, whether there's anything there to get upset about or not.
Not that this is directly relevant but it might help you understand my position: I wasn't interested in White Water either. I felt Clinton was being hounded by a sour-grapes conservative backlash frustrated at having lost the White House in 2002 and thought they'd find little. I also wasn't interested in Jennifer Flowers, incorrectly believing at the time he hadn't cheated. I also wasn't interested in Monica Lewinski, though by this time because of the earlier Flowers affair I believed he *had* cheated, regardless of what the definition of is is. And I didn't believe his behavior under oath was an impeachable offense, and again believed he was being hounded by sour-grapes conservatives.
Only the top issue or two in politics are likely to catch my interest, but most times not even those. I thought maybe you were on to something worth following, but after hearing what you had I don't think so.
A real energy crisis did occur in CA Perc (before Bush)...etc...
I don't recall disputing this, or your other evidence, and I believe I also said this in the very message you're replying to, or at least the message just before. CA was on the news, after all, we all heard about it.
You should just listen to yourself sometimes:
holmes writes:
If this does not suggest ANY improprieties to you, particularly when the company and man in question was WELL KNOWN to be one of Bush's largest contributors...
Sounds just like White Water to me, when people were saying, "How could the Clintons be so involved in White Water and be such close friends with the principals and yet not know what was really going on?" But even married people hold secrets from each other, and the ever-so-common political ploy of guilt by association is very popular. I'll wait for more information to come out if you don't mind.
I love your shift to ad hominem now that you have no real cover. How hard is it for you to admit that you were simply wrong?
Wrong about what, holmes? You seem to keep forgetting I don't have an opinion. How many times do I have to tell you I don't think there's enough information to reach a conclusion. In your more rational moments you say the same thing, like when you say maybe George Bush just made a mistake, but that's just before you tear back into me for not seeing things your way. Like most political storms, it will probably blow over with little impact. I'm just giving the odds, not making a prediction.
Maybe George Bush really *did* just make a mistake. But that's not why you're so interested in this, is it? If it was only a mistake in judgement, who cares. The Iraq mess was a far larger mistake in judgement. No, you care because you think it's much larger than that. And if you don't, then putting this much energy into something you don't care about means you have a big problem handling priorities.
Your faux disinterest grates on my nerves. You asked what I was hinting at to someone else, and I said it was not the issue that you were hinting at (at least not primarily that), and would get you more info.
My faux disinterest? What, you think I'm secretly reading all the articles I can about this? What are you smoking?
You're drawing distinctions where no one else sees any. None of your subsequent information added anything.
Your theory... people make stuff up to hurt the president...
The only one making stuff up is you, because this is fiction. I never said anyone was making stuff up, not even you. I just commented on your tendency to select a bunch of facts from which you draw your preferred conclusions, from which others aren't apparently permitted to demur.
That's my line. I was talking to TC, not you.
If you want a private conversation, get a room. And you've already been told, you were participating in *my* subthread, not I yours. You're more than welcome, but please don't keep misstating things because that forces me to set the facts before you again.
The only thing I think I understand from you is that you're upset because I gave your conspiracy theory short shrift.
Then you start acting like I was the guy who started our conversation, all the while CONTINUING to lob criticisms at my earlier posts!
You were the one who dropped the vague hint leading to my inquiry. And it isn't my fault you're super sensitive about criticism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 03-06-2004 2:17 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 03-06-2004 5:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 105 (90838)
03-06-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
03-06-2004 4:03 PM


quote:
No one else here has indicated any interest. Even the democratic candidates haven't raised this issue.
Back to this again? Crash mentioned the deregulation issue. You mentioned Enron in relation to what Crash said. TC said republicans were willing to root out corruption in Enron... I asked if that was true even if it meant it led to Bush?
Given the above not only did I NOT mention Enron first, I did not come here saying it should be a prime issue in this year's election. My ONLY point was that if Republicans were interested in a real investigation of Enron, that it would end up back at the steps of the White House.
quote:
I wasn't interested in White Water either.
For a guy that has NO INTEREST in either subject, you sure do like stating conclusions which require comparisons between them. There is little to no comparison between how the CA energy crisis and the white water case developed.
Just to let you know, I didn't care about WW at the time either, though I looked at it towards the end (when Starr said he was nearing some conclusion). So what?
quote:
"How could the Clintons be so involved in White Water and be such close friends with the principals and yet not know what was really going on?" But even married people hold secrets from each other, and the ever-so-common political ploy of guilt by association is very popular. I'll wait for more information to come out if you don't mind.
You are a very willfully ignorant person. Part of the evidence I linked to was Ken Lay's own writings to Bush, before the crisis, on deregulation. Another part was Bush's own appointees fingering Enron (along with other energy companies) in the CA scam that took advantage of deregulation. Even the PBS bio on Ken Lay pointed to this.
It is more than Bush was friends with someone that commited a crime.
I guess you'll always have to keep waiting for evidence if you stick your head in the ground when someone says "here is what I am talking about..."
quote:
Wrong about what, holmes?
That I was ever trying to develop a conspiracy theory, that I ever thought this was a major election issue, and that I intended my post to TC to be the outline of the full case plus evidence... and/or... that you could not have been aware that my post to TC wasn't given that I stated in the post before and after it that I had not laid out a case yet.
quote:
How many times do I have to tell you I don't think there's enough information to reach a conclusion. In your more rational moments you say the same thing, like when you say maybe George Bush just made a mistake, but that's just before you tear back into me for not seeing things your way.
This is funny. So I say that there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion, but there is enough to give rise to further investigation (which in FACT there is an investigation ongoing because others also believe this including Bush's own appointees), and that is irrational?
BUT, when as part of stating my position I say that GB may have just made a mistake, ONLY THEN am I being rational? Your assumption of innocence, or Innocence by Association, is just as fraudulent as guilt by association.
My position is we do NOT know if anything illegal was done, but what we DO know warrants further investigation, so a reasonable determination/conclusion can be made.
quote:
My faux disinterest? What, you think I'm secretly reading all the articles I can about this? What are you smoking?
No, I think you are interested in dismissing any possible case or evidence for a case. That is why you call my position into question, and continue to do so, without any actual regard for evidence presented (and apparently you cannot read because you are soooooo disinterested).
If you have no interest in a subject, then you simply would not address it. You would NOT act like you are making some credible rebuttal of the case.
quote:
I just commented on your tendency to select a bunch of facts from which you draw your preferred conclusions, from which others aren't apparently permitted to demur.
What facts? You said you never looked at them. What conclusions? Every time you state yours it practically sounds like mine.
The only difference at this point seems to be that you feel that there may be NO PERSONAL CONNECTION between these men (which has been disproven), and that (apparently) you don't feel an investigation into Bush's dealings with Enron is warranted, because something like this happened to Clinton and didn't pan out.
I do believe that anyone looking at the evidence, and not concluding there is the appearance of impropriety is being less than honest. That is on par with feeling a judge failing to recuse himself from a case where he is the defendant's friend has no appearance of impropriety.
While appearance does not equal guilt, it does warrant investigation, especially as in this case an investigatuon was already going on and Bush has since been linked BY THE SUSPECT to the case. And remember, people were concerned about it, and it is still in motion. Just because Dem candidates don't mention it as an election issue, does NOT mean it is not an issue in the courts. Which is ALL I WAS SAYING.
quote:
And you've already been told, you were participating in *my* subthread, not I yours. You're more than welcome, but please don't keep misstating things because that forces me to set the facts before you again.
Bud, I already told you I hadn't realized subthreads were supposed to be exclusive. And despite the fact that it was YOUR subthread, the subject WAS ENRON and where the Republicans were going to take the investigation of Enron. Even if you didn't want it to go there, TC took it there. That's when I addressed him.
If the subject I brought up did not interest you, why didn't you just stay out of it? Because it was YOUR subthread? What a laugh.
And you wonder why I keep answering your replies? Because you keep misstating things and that forces me to set the facts before you again.
quote:
The only thing I think I understand from you is that you're upset because I gave your conspiracy theory short shrift.
No I am upset because you keep giving your conspiracy theory such credit. Hell, you've got it twisted into such a paranoid position that I have been hounding you, when you are the one that started this whole thing telling me I shouldn't believe different than you (and you still hadn't heard what I was talking about)!
quote:
You were the one who dropped the vague hint leading to my inquiry. And it isn't my fault you're super sensitive about criticism.
Why would you inquire about something you have no interest in? Or the flipside of that, what could I possibly have said that included Enron, Ken Lay, and GW that would interest you and so prompt you to inquire?
Also, I have only been "supersensitive" about you miscasting my conclusions, my intents, and the nature of my evidence... not about any valid criticism of them. You do realize that you keep telling me what I meant because that is how YOU read something?
As long as YOU keep posting this garbage, I will be forced to keep defending myself from it. I'm absolutely beside myself why you are clinging to your fallacious position.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 03-06-2004 4:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 03-06-2004 7:41 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 105 of 105 (90850)
03-06-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
03-06-2004 5:54 PM


A maze of twisty little conspiracies!
Once again it seems as if you're living in some alternative universe. You're welcome to your interpretations, but I see little hope of a resolution. Again, I suggest you discuss this with someone interested.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 03-06-2004 5:54 PM Silent H 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