I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways

[kj]

And, maybe one of you should also set up a blog for the "economy rock" that gave us prosperity during Bill Clinton's presidency. kj.

[kj]

Greg the dogsitter wrote:
The one I responded to presumed to "translate" what was said. I've always felt this was terribly disingenuous, since listening to Gloria Allred on L.A. radio saying "So what you're saying is..."

What he "translated" was a strawman argument anyway (which was my point), so who cares if he translated it correctly. kj.

[Lux Interior]

kj wrote:
And, maybe one of you should also set up a blog for the "economy rock" that gave us prosperity during Bill Clinton's presidency. kj.

You can combine it with the rock that just sank the economy.

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
[quote=Greg the dogsitter]
The one I responded to presumed to "translate" what was said. I've always felt this was terribly disingenuous, since listening to Gloria Allred on L.A. radio saying "So what you're saying is..."

What he "translated" was a strawman argument anyway (which was my point), so who cares if he translated it correctly. kj.
Strawman: I assert that you believe x, which you really don't.
Quoted: x, therefore y and z. I didn't see an opinion being attributed.

[Rick-o]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
[quote=Greg the dogsitter]
Dammit! I clicked! :-)

It was obviously not a properly set up blog. Try this one.

http://antiterrorismrock.blogger.com/

Grrr!!! Hulk getting :XANGRY!!!

[kj]

His argument assumes someone believes other than this:

>>>they are still around
Mission was NOT accomplished
and the theory that fighting them over there will not require us to fight them here is naive at best<<<

As I explained, no one believes 1) the terrorists are no longer still around 2) the mission being accomplished means we won't have problems with terrorists ever again, 3) that we won't need to fight them here. If no one believes these things he's arguing with someone he's invented. There's your x. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

No, it means that the poster believes it's a stronger point. Making an assertion about my own belief does not mean I'm asserting anything about yours.

Besides, the "translation" was unnecessarily inflammatory. If I assert that egg nog is better without alcohol, that doesn't say anything about your opinion. And if I intended it to do so, nobody would really care.

However, turning "terrorists are still around" into "I hope they are still around" is different.

[kj]

>>>Making an assertion about my own belief does not mean I'm asserting anything about yours.

He believes someone is saying that there aren't terrorists still around? Well he's wrong. No one has ever said that. He invented a strawman that said that. No real person ever said there aren't any terrorists left alive, etc. There was no reason to even bother with the "translation", because the whole argument was bogus. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
>>>Making an assertion about my own belief does not mean I'm asserting anything about yours.

He believes someone is saying that there aren't terrorists still around? Well he's wrong. No one has ever said that. He invented a strawman that said that. No real person ever said there aren't any terrorists left alive, etc. There was no reason to even bother with the "translation", because the whole argument was bogus. kj.

I perceived it as a counterpoint, not as positioning someone's else's argument for them.

[kj]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=kj]
And, maybe one of you should also set up a blog for the "economy rock" that gave us prosperity during Bill Clinton's presidency. kj.

You can combine it with the rock that just sank the economy.
Nah, I'm thinking the whole rock thing is a really dumb idea. kj.