And do you believe that this makes the information more or less reliable? Coming from you, of all people, I find the implication startling! Every time another poster pulls up the “consider the source” argument, you’re the first one to jump down his or her throat.
I am not considering the source, I am quoting the source. Once again.
Then why, Lib, did you feel it necessary to point out that the board’s owner is not a journalist, and that the writer in question is described as a “freelance researcher?” Are these facts germane to making a determination about the truth or falsity of the information being presented?
If the CCR did, in fact, stand by the material presented, would that make it more true or less true? Is the CCR’s disclaimer actually of any value in determining whether the information is correct or not?
Wriggle all you like.
Golly, I guess all those cites are worthless then? Better to just believe what the prezdent and all those other smart guys in the govment sez.
No, but you left out half my post. It is a message board run by slackers and New York hippies with expired CCL licenses who blatantly disclaim its accuracy, currency, and completeness. I am not saying that the information is inaccurate; I’m saying that a prudent man will question everything on the page. Do you for some reason disagree?
It is not necessary to be either a braying jackas or a lead-footed elephant.
You are clearly implying that the information is less worthy of belief than information taken from another source - why else would a “prudent man” question it? This is exactly the approach for which you have chastised other posters. In fact, I’m fairly sure you’ve applied a term of art to this logical fallacy, one that I can’t quite remember at the moment. Anyone out there remember what it is? “Poisoned well,” perhaps?
I’m not saying that it’s an irrational approach - we all make such judgments every day of our lives. I’m just surprised to see you defending it.
A prudent man or woman will read the cites, as I have been doing. I’ve a long way to go, there are hundreds of them, but they seem ok to me so far.
The page says that it’s “…an attempt to give the most complete account of Bush’s actions - from Florida to Louisiana to Nebraska to Washington, DC.” They give the facts when the facts are there to be had, and they give cites for conjecture and theory. Other than a webcam on Bush 24 hours a day, this is just about as close as anyone’s going to get. Who cares if it’s by “slackers and New York hippies”? They’ve obviously been getting motivated since our mainstream press has been so dismal about putting together information.
Speaking of reading the cites, some things will make one’s eyes pop out. In this interesting story from the Washington Post, I came across:
I’m afraid that I would be much more impressed if you actually were in charge of something, that day, and could still correctly recall all the details.
I, too, can recall what I was doing and where I was as most of the news was presented (either over the internet or on TV) that day. However, on that day I was running a series of fairly mundane tests with a lot of lag time and I had ample opportunity to surf the net and wander down to the lobby where large TVs were re-playing the activities ad infinitum.
On the other hand, my memory of the events on the day the Alfred P. Murrah building was bombed are a blurry haze, because I was running a whole series of interlocked tests with no lag time and a crucial need to coordinate the results among several tests, some of which needed to be run in order and some of which needed to be run simultaneously. (I know that the events blurred, because I was called upon one week later to attest to the efficacy of the tests and I had to use extensive notes to establish the timelines. Since one of the tests was screwed up because another programmer was over listening to radio reports regarding the bombing (and the “midlle easterners” that caused it), I needed to identify the sequence of Oklahoma City-related news events (and his commentary upon the same) to my testing and I required notes to do it.)
I do not like or approve of G. W. Bush. I think he has made a hash of a lot of American policy. I think his general response to terrorist attacks has been misplaced and wrong-headed.
I also think that wandering around picking up bits and pieces of conflicting testimony about what occurred vs what is remembered on a particular day that was without precedent in the history of the country actually interferes with our ability to make coherent judgements regarding his capacity to lead the most powerful country in the world.
You’re mixed up. It is one thing to discredit information summarily based on the source (poison well), and another to question its veracity (prudence). The former says, “It is not true”; the latter says, “It could be wrong.” In this thread, the information has been assumed as true. You should question this source for the same reason that you would question a conservative blog that reveals “new” information about Bill Clinton. Tomndebb, as usual, is taking the level-headed approach. Whereas the OP came in with almost a giddy announcement about this source, Tomndebb is asking questions and making rational points. Meanwhile, you are trying your best to pin an inappropriate fallacy on me, when you should be agreeing that, if nothing else, their own disclaimer opens the door to whether or not their information is accurate. You are straining gnats and swallowing camels. If you respond, kindly address this:
Kudos to you. Your approach is the right one. But this:
What’s the problem with that? Is it not more practical to pick them off one at a time than all 60 at once?
Whether anyone thinks or cares about it now is not important. Historians will want as accurate an account as possible. Our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, will be studying this time in history in school, and let’s hope to ghod they’ll have accounts based on as much fact as possible, rather than confusing, conflicting testimony. People need to get this straightened out NOW, for the future.
Yeah there are bigger reasons to want Bush out, but it doesn’t make every single thing that happened on this one day any less important to either those who are interested now (like me) and to those who will be interested 100 years from now.
Why wasn’t I interested in it before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11? Because I didn’t KNOW about it. I knew he was at a school, but I didn’t know how long he was there. I didn’t know anything about that day that went on outside the scope of the planes crashing. Even though this happened 3 years ago, it’s a whole new area for me to think about. It’s not the only area, just one. But yes, I am giddy. I’ve been to too many sites that say a lot, but where cites are scarce. Finally, we have one that’s STUFFED with cites.
The more I read, the more angry I get at Bush and his handlers, mainly his handlers, for not getting everyone out of that building. From the Washington Post story I quoted above:
I don’t know the time frame yet of any of these false reports, but shouldn’t SOMEONE have gotten the idea that a plane could be headed for that school? It doesn’t matter that it didn’t happen and, it seems, wasn’t going to happen (even though Atta might have been scoping the area out). It COULD have happened. It was very possible, yet seemingly only one person thought to evacuate (Marine responsible for carrying Bush’s phone immediately said to Balkwill, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” ) and was overruled. Even then it was just about the president, not the schoolchildren and teachers, let alone reporters and everyone else there.
I don’t know about him, but I’m addressing that by actually reading the cites, and they are standing up.
You’re treating it like a joke, but Bush said it at a serious meeting. Even if it wasn’t meant literally it wasn’t a joke to Tenet or Bush. So, we have 58 more to go. Freakin’ hilarious.
Hmmmm. Well, I’ll take a stab at that. It’s stupid. Yes, I think that’s it, in a nutshell. A policy of sequential war is, admittedly, more intelligent than taking on 60 seperate nations all at once. It is also more intelligent to merely nail your pecker to a tree, rather than subsequently setting the tree ablaze.
I’m inclined to doubt the story simply because we are reasonably assured that GeeDubya, for all his failings (and they are legion) is capable of making his own oatmeal. God forfend he should ever actually have to, but he probably could.
Huh? Oatmeal?
Why do you doubt the story? First, what story? That he said “Let’s pick them off one at a time”? The article was written by Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, and there are other exact quotes. I assume they had a good source for those quotes. I haven’t delved into where they got their cites.
If not that story, what?
A joke? What are you talking about? The President was told that Bin Laden was operating in 60 countries, and he recommended they be picked off one at a time. Are you confused about the expression “picked off”? It’s a baseball expression: “To catch (a base runner) off base and put out with a quick throw, as from the pitcher or catcher, often to a specified base.”
Ah, I knew we’d been here before. In this thread, friend Liberal made this assertion:
Yet here we have the self-same Liberal saying sod all about the information being put forward, and instead telling us all to “consider the source.”
Please enlighten us, Lib - do you believe that any of the information is incorrect? If so, which? Cite, please. Your dire warning about the unreliability of the source is clearly of no probative value, now is it?
Before you go getting all moist over this, let me just add that this strikes me as the standard sort of disclaimer one would expect from any media outlet that, without exercising editorial control, provides a forum for others to express their opinions. In other words, it doesn’t have any value whatsoever in deciding whether the reader should be skeptical or not.
By contract, FoxNews does stand behind its reporters, but that makes me even more skeptical of what they’re reporting.
Make that, “By contrast…” :smack:
As I wrote in the thread you quoted: “It is reasonable to view any source with skepticism.” You apparently cannot grasp what I have explained to you already, that questioning a source because of who said it and declaring a source false because of who said it are two different things. On second thought, since a third grader could grasp that, you are just being a jerk.
When you use quotation marks, what is between them ought to be the words of the person you’re quoting. Do not misquote me again in that manner.
Once again (what, fourth time now?), the dire warning comes from the site itself:
Same same for CNN and MSNBC. But here is a wide-open blog accessible to anyone with an expired CCL license that flatly disclaims any reliability whatsoever, and what do you do? Waste time nitpicking over something you do not even understand, making the whole thing about me rather than about the source, and even digging though 16,000 posts to lift one remark out of context that is not even applicable here. Your argument is desparate, stupid, vapid, and ignorant. And those are its good points.
:eek: Ooookaaaay. You said:
Tenet says We have a 60-country problem
(I take that to mean there are 60 countries harboring terrorists who wish harm on the U.S.)
Dubya says Let’s pick them off one at a time
(I take that to mean let’s go in there and smash 'em to pieces and find those fuckers. One at a time though, of course)
You say what’s the problem?
(I take that to be a sarcastic joke, that of course you’d have problems bombing and invading 58 more countries looking for terrorists. One at a time, of course)
You say what joke?
(I take that to mean that you really wouldn’t have a problem with bombing and invading 58 more countries looking for terrorists. One at a time, of course.)
Did my brain just go into lululand?