----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:46 AM Subject: RE: Debunking: a blast from the past
> > > > In post 73988 (Aug. 15, 2001 at 5PM) I define debunk > > <snip definition> > > > Is it fair to say that this is a clear definition? IMHO, it shows why > > someone who uses the word debunk in an argument should expect to > > have to meet a very high standard for proof. Do you agree? If not, > > why not? > > I am not arguing about the correctness of your definition. The issue is that > you attribute a statement to me that you cannot reproduce from the archive. > This is a multi-step process: So, we've achieved agreement on the first point. I gave a very reasonable definition of debunk the afternoon of August 15th. From that, I would expect you to understand that definition as soon as you read that post. To establish the latest that time can be, let me look at a post where you quoted my post: Elsewhere in post 73988, I write: <quote> Well, lets look at the data. The record of war games vs. actual war outcomes have been mixed. But, the Gulf war, the last one with significant US ground troops has shown that the tactics were fairly successful. So, on the whole, their claims would probably be given decent weight. <end quote> In post 74004 (August 16th, 3:14 PM) you answer: <quote>> >Well, lets look at the data. The record of war games vs. actual war >outcomes have been mixed. But, the Gulf war, the last one with significant >US ground troops has shown that the tactics were fairly successful. So, on >the whole, their claims would probably be given decent weight. I find this rather surprising. You always claim that reports must be peer-reviewed, and you want a link to them so you can examine them in detail. Yet, the contents of these wargames are not publicly available (the Pentagon conveniently uses the argument "that information is classified") so the validity can not be determined, but you nevertheless seem to believe that those wargames are accurate <end quote> So, I assumed that when we continued to discuss this subject, we both knew what debunked means and we both knew why I was holding you to such high standards in your argument (that and the high standards needed to prove crimes against humanity). Is this an unreasonable assumption? If so, why? Then, on August 20th , you wrote in post 74084 <quote> OK, so I used what in English is considered a very strong word. Cut me some slack -- English isn't my native language, and I don't have my copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary memorized either. <end quote> But, this was four days after I provided the definition of the word. If debunk wasn't the right word, why in the world didn't you state that it wasn't the right word as soon as I gave the precise definition. Instead, you continued to argue your case and then finally made a sarcastic reply that indicated that it was unreasonable to expect you to know the definition of the word. Why was it unreasonable to for me to expect that you knew the definition after you read the post in which I gave the definition to you? Now, this isn't the final step in the process, but I do want to stop here and get your response. Dan M.
