No, it’s not. A confirmation would be an affirmative. A refusal to deny is not an affirmative.
In that context, it is.
There has been no confirmation.
Is a plea of “No Contest” the same thing as a plea of “guilty”?
The spokesman in this case was not on trial.
Why would Davis want to meet with, never mind being “inspired by”, some who evangelicals/fundamentalists considered to be a fraud, liar, unholy, etc. ?
I’ll take that as a “No”, then.
I do not deny it.
Because she’s a nut case, so much so that even other Kentuckians notice.
Thanks for offering an example that confirms that a refusal to deny is not an affirmative.
Yet that is how you took it.
Yeah - there has been -
[QUOTE=Vatican Confirms: ‘Yes,’ Pope Francis Met With Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis - TPM – Talking Points Memo]
After doubts were raised about a claim from Kim Davis’ legal team that Pope Francis and the Kentucky clerk met secretly during his visit to the U.S., the Vatican confirmed to The New York Times the meeting did indeed happen.
Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, told the Times: “I do not deny that the meeting took place, but I have no other comments to add."
[/QUOTE]
While i dislike the wording “I do not deny…” - that is an affirmative response in this case.
Is not.
There really is no context. Was this during a rapid fire Q & A session where they asked “do you deny the reports…?” and the guy, never having heard of Davis said “Uhhh… no I won’t deny it.” Did he mispeak and forget the “or confirm” part? Or did he say he wouldn’t deny it in a way that said “Yes, we don’t deny it, it totally happened.”
I may be nitpicking, but I really don’t care if she met the Pope or not (except for the fact that she’ll be fucking insufferable now). It just seems like an odd story and “we don’t confirm or deny, we don’t confirm or deny, we don’t confirm or deny, we don’t confirm or deny, we don’t deny” isn’t quite solid enough for me.
The media is acting like it’s the latter, and maybe so, but I’ve been close to enough media stories to know that if it hinges on a subtlety, be wary.
ETA: before someone calls me on it, of course I know his exact quote, the above is just examples about how he might have said it.
Who cares anyway. I had a “private meeting with the pope” before I left for work this morning, if you know what I mean…
As a statement that is not an affirmative? Yes, that is how I took your statement; that’s why it is an example that confirms that a refusal to deny is not an affirmative statement.
“I do not deny” is how I’d handle the claims of a scary crazy person.
Like you - it makes no difference to me or our system that she met with the pope - she could have met with God ro Jesus directly and I still wouldn’t give a crap.
That being said - the context to me is clear - that the person answering the question is confirming the visit took place and that is it - “do not deny” in this case is being used as an affirmation - it wasnt a ‘secret’ meeting that he wound “neither confirm or deny” or anything else - he also likely doesnt have any other details than “yeah, they met”.
he’s also likely tired of the question and extra attention this particular meeting is bringing- Davis is acting like this was more than a handshake, the Pope’s team is like “yeah, this is user 1005 today, got any more love beads in the back?”
“you meet one Ky county clerk, you’d think the apocolypse has started”
Kentucky clerk Kim Davis met privately with Pope Francis, Vatican confirms - WAPO
Vatican confirms pope met with Kim Davis -USA Today
The Vatican confirmed that the pope met with Ms. Davis - NYT
But Snowboarder Bo says no.
None of those articles quote a source which “confirms” that the Pope met Davis.
Your sudden deference to the mainstream media’s interpretation of events, however, is noted.