Martin, you are the one trying to be the semantics police here. Go bore somebody else will you. First you try to tell me what I am thinking and how I should have said it. Then you are trying to tell me in what fashion I am to render it and you offer a preposterous sentence that is not only NOT my style of speaking, but is NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING. I seriously tried to explain it to you earlier and even read you the friggin' dictionary, but I don't have time for this. I've got better things to do than try to convince an internet geek that I'm going to say whatever I want to, in any fashion that I care to, whenever I damn well please. I reserve at all times the right to say ain't, to be politically incorrect, and fail to conform to the narrow grammatical viewpoints of the local know-it-alls. If my manner of speech offends you . . . well, who really gives a rat's ass.
right, i didnt expect you had it in you to admit you were wrong. i appreciate that you are stubborn enough for me to laugh at.
Just chiming in w/ my $0.02... I think the best usage to indicate what you want to say, Red, would be the old all-inclusive "and/or". It's a nice CYA phrase. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: That's how I would settle this argument.
polemicist, noun [syn: polemist, polemic] 1: A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation 2: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) 3: a person addicted to the practice of dispute 4: an aggressive controversialist
oh yes change the subject. you are unable to admit a simple word usage mistake. of course i fit definitions 1, 2, and 4 of polemicist. isnt that what free speech alley is for? was i supposed to deny i like to argue? it surely amused me to illustrate your inability to admit your mistake.
I haven't made any mistakes and you don't know what you are talking about. You have proved nothing and only like to create disputes over trivia. Your inability to distinguish between Boolean logic and the English language is interesting, but I tire of this. Just let it go. Talk about changing the subject. This was a Bush/Kerry thread until you decided to redefine the meaning of the word "or". Now go ahead and get in another little dig, but I'm through.
Quote: Talk about changing the subject. This was a Bush/Kerry thread until you decided to redefine the meaning of the word "or". ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that anything like what the meaning of the word is is? :shock: :grin: :rofl: :rofl:
at this point i think everyone knows that isnt true, but you are too stubborn to admit it. i didnt expect you to, i expected i would make you look silly. i have done it to better men than you. try as you might, but the word "or" is still used to indicate one thing "or" another, not both. you should not describe a PBJ sandwich as "peanut butter or jelly". do you describe the democratic ticket as kerry "or" edwards? we were discussing how this story "is really just a silly, sloppy and botched attempt to smear Pres. Bush". and of course it is. there is not much doubt about that. rather and cbs were incredibly irresponsible with their journalism and since they are thinly veiled partisans, they proceeded with a terribly researched story. while we were discussing this, you attempted to undermine our point about rather by mentioning that this story may be an effort to discredit rather by some other person or group. in opposition to our discussion of the crux of this story, you claimed: "Or it could be a very clever and successful operation to smear Dan Rather." you proceeded to deny the meaning of the word "or", when clearly your theory was independent of whether the story indicated irresponsibility and partisanship on the part of rather/CBS. your point may be valid, i have no idea. maybe people hate rather and set him up for a fall. that is beside the point. the fact is he bought into BS evidence, possibly because he is too eager to hurt bush. if in fact your theory is correct, it is immaterial to the most important issue of all, which is the american people's ability to trust an independent media who does thorough and honest research. whether somebody wants to discredit rather is less important than the fact that he has actually been discredited by his own actions. so rather has attempted to smear bush "AND" it may be for whatever reason you claim. it is not true one damn bit to say rather has attempted to smear bush "OR" there was an attempt to smear rather. the targets of smear campaigns are not bush "or" rather. you can backtrack and play word games with me, but i will call you out and demonstrate your foolishness. thats probably the best plan for you. i would just further dismantle your nonsense.
Whether or not this was an attempt to smear Dan Rather is really irrelevant. It doesn't let Rather off the hook for being guilty of shoddy journalism in this matter. IF it was an attempt by sombody at CBS to "get" Rather, it was only because they knew beforehand that he wouldn't research the story properly, given the subject matter...and for a professional journalist, that is absolutely inexcusable.
