Look, he didn’t say that the U.S. didn’t provide funding to Bin Laden in the 70’s, he just said that he wouldn’t say that anyone saying we did had a point. Saying you wouldn’t say something is not the same thing as saying it’s not true. There could be other reasons for not saying something. In The Ryan’s case, my guess is that it’s because he doesn’t know how to pronounce Afghanistan.
The meaning of quotes marks depends on context. Furthermore, even if you though they denoted a direct quote, why were you convinced that it was you that I was quoting?
You presented the latter in response to the former, and implied that the lattter was a restatement of the former, rather than a distortion.
carrot
It would seem to me that if Coldfire believes that there is point to be made, it would up to him to explain what the point is, rather than up to me to provide reasoning why there isn’t.
Coldfire
I think you’ve already made up your mind on that regard, and anything I were to say would simply labeled a “semantic game”. Because of course you know anything I say is a semantic game, because I am a troll. And you know I am a troll because everything I say is a semantic game. It’s really a quite solid, logical conclusion, which conveniently enough allows you to completely ignore anything I say.
But on the off chance that you wish to actually understand my position, rather than be as dismissive of other points of view as the GOH of this thread, you might consider what your reaction were to be if I were to state that you are from a country that surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months, and you were to state that you don’t think I have a point, and I were to then ask whether you were denying that you are from a country that surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months.
I think it was the fact that you quoted my statement and then used the word you, as in "isn’t it interesting how you [Giraffe] went from
[quote A]
to
[quote B]
?" Are you saying now that you were in fact referring to someone who wasn’t me? I’m assuming you do actually know who you were referring to when you typed that – why on earth are you looking to me to provide evidence to you for what you were thinking when you wrote something? How about, to save time, you just tell me who you were quoting if it wasn’t me?
Is there something wrong with you? How can you think this constitutes normal conversational interaction?**
How exactly could I do that, when I never said anything remotely resembling the former [“It is theoretically possible that Bill O’Reilly was being deceptive”]? Again, is there a language barrier here I’m unaware of?
Oh, Lord. The game is afoot, already.
The Ryan, pay close attention now. We’re going to do a quick recap:[ul][li]You ask me why I didn’t condemn the interviewee for suggesting the US trained the 9/11 hijackers, whereas I DID condemn O’Reilly for being a rude asshole.[]I state that while it’s not entirely clear what the interviewee meant (because he was interrupted and his mic was cut), that if he meant to say that the US government provided Bin Laden with weapons, funding and training in the 70’s, he would be absolutely right. I also provided a reputable link (BBC News) demonstrating this fact (which is common knowledge to begin with, anyway).[]You state that if such were to be the point of the interviewee, it would not be correct.[]I ask you if you are denying that the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s.[]You respond by saying it is up to me to prove the point, if there is any.[/ul]The Ryan, stop it right there. You’ve done this a million times before on these boards, and you’re not getting away with it now. [/li]
I already explained what I think the point was. I also stated that it wasn’t entirely certain that this WAS the point of the interviewee, but IF it were the case, he would be correct.
It is therefore NOT up to me to explain anything at this stage. I gave my interpretation, backed up by fact. You seemed to take issue with the factual part of my post. I asked you whether you were denying the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s.
YOU WEASELED, AND STARTED WHINING ABOUT ME HAVING TO STILL PROVE A POINT, OR STATE WHAT THE POINT IS.
Answer the question, The Ryan. A simple yes or no will suffice: Are you denying the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s?
YES. OR. NO.
I never said you were a troll. I implied you were prone to playing semantic games rather than addressing the issues at hand. So far, you seem to prove me right with your weaseling responses.
You make no sense whatsoever. Answer the questions, and stop weasling. Moreover, get off the fucking cross already.
You wouldn’t have a point, actually. The Netherlands surrendered to the Nazis after four days of fierce battles, in which we were completely outnumbered from the get-go (seeing as we were a neutral country going into WWII, our defense forces were rather minimal). Were you trying to make a point with this example, or are you just simply playing games again?
In answer to your hypothetical question: yes, I am denying that the Netherlands surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months, because that statement is incorrect: we surrendered after 4 days.
It’s all about getting the facts straight. I stated that if statement X was implied by O’Reilly’s interviewee, he would have the facts on his side. You said he wouldn’t. I asked you if you were denying those facts.
YOU WEASELED.
The Ryan, it’s time for you to grow a pair, and answer in a direct manner rather than dance around the issues with stupid word games. Idiot.
Awestruck round of applause
Well done, Coldfire.
Jesus , The Ryan. You’re reaching a bit, aren’t you? What the fuck was all that about the Nazis? Y’know, Godwin’s Law is not really an effective strategy for ending an argument.
:eek: Jake Featherston lives. :eek:
carrot
My point was to show that it is possible to not have a point, but still be correct. I see that Coldfire is completely sidestepping that issue, and is trying to divert attention to the issue of whether that was an example of a true statement. And he calls me a weasel. And Coldfire: WWII is generally accepted as beginning with the invasion of Poland, an event which preceded, by eight months, the surrender of the Netherlands. Reaaalllly important to our discussion. :rolleyes:
Coldfire
Interesting how you changed the issue to one which can more easily supported. Me, I would have thought that when he said that the government trained the terrorists, he meant that they trained the terrorists. Perhaps these “deceptive, but technically true” statements are not limited to O’Reilly. And had you paid attention to what you were saying, you would have realized that you did not merely claim that he is correct, but that he has a point.
No, I didn’t. What I said was that if that’s what he meant, I would not say he has a point. Before you go flying off the handle and get so mad with anger that you think that extra-big type will made your position any stronger, you might want to actually look at what the other person is saying.
I have been accused of malfeasance many times, but I believe that this situation is a quite representative in showing the absurdity of these accusations. You ignore what I plainly said and make up something completely different, and when I do not accept your altered version of my words, you accuse me of “weaseling”. Simply because I expressed disagreement with one part of your post, that does make it valid for you to pick out a completely different part of your post, and act like I had denied that.
Whether one has a point is an opinion, not a fact.
How would you feel if someone came up to you, started shouting at and insulting you, and then started demanding that you answer a question, doing so in a manner that implied that no matter what you answer, he will consider you to be playing a semantic game? If you’re going to be an asshole, you should be prepared for the possibility that people won’t be eager to answer your questions.
You’re the one dancing around the issue. The issue is whether he has a point, not whether he’s correct.
Your accusation of me “weaseling” is quite bizarre. I have stated that I do not think that, in the situation you presented, he has a point. I do not see any reason why I am obligated to present an argument for why he does not have a point, and in fact such a task would be futile, for there an infinite number of points for me to show him to be lacking.
Sheesh, Giraffe, if I were dissecting someone’s post as much as you are, I’d be dismissed as playing “semantic games”. Do you need everything spelled out for you? Perhaps if you spent your time actually trying to understand what other people were thinking, rather than coming up with petty strawmen, you might get somewhere without me holding your hand.
“Are you saying now that you were in fact referring to someone who wasn’t me?”
No, I’m saying that “you” is the subject for the verb “went”. The “quotes” (since they weren’t verbatim, they weren’t exactly quotes) were the object of the verb. The subject of a sentence need not be the creator of the object. For instance if I were to ask “How did you go from the library to the store?” I would not be implying that either the library or the store were in any way yours. Similarly, saying that you went from one statement to another does not necessarily mean that the statements were yours. Example:
See? I just went from “I’m still a little confused how I ‘went from’ one to the other” to “I’m still a little confused how 2+2=4” even though neither of those quotes were mine. The verb “to go” is being used metaphorically to denote the process in which someone takes a statement and uses it as a basis to formulate a new statement. The original statement need not have been said by the person in question
“How exactly could I do that, when I never said anything remotely resembling the former?”
Do what? Respond to the former? Imply that the latter is a restatement of the former?