Anyone ever heard that Space Ghost song about wanting Tardos to come to their senses?
>--- Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I don�t agree. First of all a back seat driver doesn�t
>have hindsight, he�s just arrogant.
>They don�t necessarily claim to know more. They state
>they would�ve done it differently. They question
>choices made that they now know were wrong. �If he had
>passed it to the other guy it probably wouldn�t have
>been intercepted.�
>
>> The ACTUAL quarterback would never be a "Monday
>> Morning Quarterback" - only
>> the schmoes criticizing him at the water cooler the
>> next day can be. I was
>> not at all gainsaying the idea that the criticism
>> came with the benefit of
>> hindsight (my definition included that).
>
>You said it was somebody that claims that they could
>have done something better
>I don�t think the people at the water cooler think
>they could throw or run better than the quarterback.
>We�re talking about knowing that a play failed and
>they wouldn�t have done it if they were the
>quarterback.
>
>You explain you know what I meant but the choice of
>words are wrong. Why are you attacking my words? If
>you addressed the issue instead of trying to attack my
>use of words we wouldn�t waste our time over stupid
>definitions.
>
>
>
>> I was
>> challenging the idea that
>> the phrase applied to self-criticism whether it be
>> an individual or an
>> organization.
>
>I don�t know why you feel it can�t be self-criticism.
>The quarterback might be on television after the game
>or the next day and say, I shouldn�t have passed it to
>him. At the time he didn�t know it would be a bad pass
>but now he does. Why are you adding to the definition?
>Who told you a quarterback can�t critique himself
>after the fact?
>
>They didn�t question the editor�s decision before, but
>now with hindsight they do. To me that�s Monday
>morning quarterbacking. To you it isn�t so we
>understand the phrase differently. What does it have
>to do with the message?
>
>
>
>To criticize.
>1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge
>accordingly
>2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of
>
>To Judge:
>1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing
>of evidence and testing of premises
>2 : to sit in judgment on : TRY
>3 : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and
>deliberation
>4 : GOVERN, RULE -- used of a Hebrew tribal leader
>5 : to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially :
>to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him
>because of his accent>
>6 : to hold as an opinion : GUESS, THINK <I judge she
>knew what she was doing>
>
>I don�t know why you think that means could have done
>better.
>
>
>
>If they �KNEW� the WMDs didn�t exist they would have
>front paged it.
>They didn�t. Now they KNOW they don�t exist so they
>say they should have supported the skepticism. I don�t
>know why you�re trying so hard to dissect my words to
>fit your agenda.
>
>> It does NOT sound (again, at least to me) like
>> they're claiming a focus of
>> support for Bush caused them to miss opportunities
>> for investigation (if I
>> may paraphrase your statement).
>
>"Administration assertions were on the front page.
>Things that challenged the
>administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday.
>There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going
>to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary
>stuff?"
>
>
>> You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion of
>> what things sound like,
>> but you've not convinced me that the substance of
>> the material clearly
>> indicates your views at all.
>
>Are you saying again that my reading comprehension
>needs improvement?
>Is this your way of saying I have no idea what I�m
>talking about? Nice.
>
>
>I was playing on the fact that some people that
>disagree with me on this list call me stupid or claim
>I have poor reading comprehension. I figured you were
>jumping on the bandwagon by saying I didn�t read the
>article. The fact that I commented about the articles
>means I did read it, so your stating I probably didn�t
>read it draws only one conclusion, I have a reading
>comprehension problem. I stated you probably didn�t
>read the original article and there�s no way for me to
>know that you did.
>
>
>> Why are conclusions you've come based on your
>> reading intelligent and clear,
>> but those that differ indicative of comprehension
>> issues or failure to even
>> consider the material?
>
>You�re the one saying my views don�t make any sense.
>I�m only defending my point of view.
>
>> In fact he specifically states that it was the lack
>> of enough evidence
>> (indicating that they did have at least some
>> evidence) that caused him to
>> choose the way he did, not some blanket policy to
>> support Bush.
>
>That�s your interpretation. I read it as they were
>trusting and running everything the administration
>said on page one. Everything that questioned the
>administration was buried on page 18 or past.
>
>
>They were trusting and running everything the
>administration said on page one. Everything that
>questioned the administration was buried. They claimed
>page one was a billboard and most people never made it
>to page 18.
>
>
>Again, I read it different. They were trusting and
>running everything the administration said on page
>one. Everything that questioned the administration was
>buried. They claimed page one was a billboard and most
>people never made it to page 18.
>
>> You can definitely assume reasons for why they
>> wouldn't "worry about all
>> this contrary stuff", but considering that Bush
>> wasn't mentioned and the
>> stance of the Post in the past it seems very
>> unlikely that it was due to
>> "support for the president".
>
>They didn�t mention Bush but they did say the
>administration.
>
>"Administration assertions were on the front page.
>Things that challenged the
>administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday
>
>> When did I say that I didn't read the original
>> article? Why assume that my
>> comments come from ignorance rather than an honest,
>> intelligent
>> interpretation of the statements at hand?
>
>When did you say you read the original? The article
>posted here wasn�t the original.
>
>
>Continued�.
>
>-sm
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
