On Nov 6, 2004, at 9:51 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I'll fully agree with you on one point: our different opinions
concerning
Bush will be subject to experimental verification....so I can see your
reluctance to spend time on speculation.
Gosh, you both sound like guys whose lives aren't on the line, who have
no kids that are serving overseas now, might not be drafted ... and who
believe that there's some kind of ghost that lives on after the body
dies.
Just because we prefer solid evidence to speculation?
Um, no; because you pretend to speculate even though there's already solid evidence that undermines your "speculations" -- and while continuing to dither, lend tacit support to national foolishness.
I hope you can believe that my mother dying is actually important to me.
For this very reason, I relied on data, instead of conjecture. There are
times when one should get the most out of limited information and make a
decison. There are other times when waiting for more data is the best
thing to do. I saw John arguing for the latter, and I understood why he
would argue in this manner.
The difference being that there are people dying *now* while you continue to speculate. It's not something that might happen eventually in a worst case scenario; it IS the worst case scenario now.
What is interesting to me, but not understood, is your view that using reason and data to make decisions on war and peace is a bad thing and indicates bad faith.
I don't hold that view. It's obvious to everyone (except those who want to debate it, in spite of overwhelming evidence) that the reasons given for attacking Iraq -- which took attention away from Bin Laden -- were all false. I don't understand, myself, why anyone can find anything left to debate.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
