--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I just helped circulate that in another post. > > > > It is ambiguous, but I am not sure which slant was meant. > > I just *told* you which "slant" was meant.
Well I guess that solves it then. Case closed. I have just had a revleation. Life will be so much easier if I just always get the truth straight from Judy. > Don't let your mind be so open your brains > fall out. You've been doing that a lot > lately. I suppose cults could use the same reasoning. > The "by > > definition" "proof" isn't definative IMO. > > What are you talking about? "By definition" > refers to what he meant, it has nothing to do > with "proof." Read what I wrote again, please. I did read it again. And again it appears to me that you make the same mistake that a lot of smart people make. They confuse that which makes crystal clear sense with reality. Bob Bigante does this a lot, IMO Peter does it, you do it, and frankly I do it -- though I try to catch myself and make the distinction between what seems "for sure" and that which may be -- opening myself to the fact that I might be wrong (though is a small probability) even though I had that FLASH of Eureaka insight that usually rings the Bell of Truth. > It needs clarification by > > Wilson -- which I assume he will provide today. > > I'm sure he will, yes. Yes, so lets wait till he does instead of putting words in his mouth. > But he really shouldn't > even have to; Yes, the world would be a lot simpler if the damned press would just call you and clarify what everyone meant when words are ambiguous. But until Sat yuga, we will have to let the original speakers actually clarify for themselves what they meant, instead of relying on the clearly superior method of relying on you. :) > it's quite obvious what he meant, > in context. On second read, i agree that your interpretation seems probably. But to tell you the truth, being the idiot I must be (your words) when I read it in the press, I thought it a little odd, but I thought Wilson was making the same point Sanford did last night -- that Val did not meet the strict definition of the "covert" in the statute. > It's being spun otherwise by folks > who *have* no brains (including AP, sad to say), > or who think nobody else has any brains to see > through the idiotic spin. Oh come now Judy, no need to resort to ad hominen venting and to delfate what I am sure is your vast capacity for compassion. > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Also, be aware there's an AP article on the > > > same topic that has a *very* misleading > > > sentence in reporting on yesterday's > > > Wolf Blitzer interview with Wilson: > > > > > > "But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer > in > > > an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified > > > her. 'My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob > Novak > > > blew her identity,' he said." > > > > > > The quote by itself is ambiguous, but in > > > context, Wilson meant that once Novak had > > > blown her cover, she was no longer covert > > > *by definition*. > > > > > > The wingnutosphere is going nuts with this > > > quote, claiming it's an admission that Plame > > > wasn't undercover after all, so her clandestine > > > status couldn't have been outed. AP really > > > screwed up; we're going to be hearing this > > > misreading for weeks. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
