--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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.
Um, no. I guess you don't understand what it means. > > 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. Yeah, but you've now come up with a different point. You apparently misread it at first and thought that the phrase "by definition" was being used as some kind of proof. It wasn't. Responding to your on-second-thought point: 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. Yeah, well, this wasn't a FLASH of Eureka insight, this was good old common sense. Your problem is, you're not making a distinction between what is *self-evidently* true and what is *probably* true. Your caveat is fine when it comes to what is *probably* true, but it looks real silly with regard to what is self-evidently true. > > 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. Nobody put words in his mouth. I stated what he had meant by the words he actually said. > > 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. :) Actually we can all use our God-given brains in many cases to figure out where the press has failed to use theirs. > > 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. That's what I thought when I first read it. However, when I read the *context*, I realized it was a misreading. Have you read it in context? > > 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. Er, I wasn't including you. You at least have the good sense to realize it's *probably* a misreading, just not quite enough good sense to realize it's *self-evidently* a misreading, especially when you see it in context. Wilson can't acknowledge what his wife's status was, by the way, for the same reason the leaker should not have revealed it; he has to be very careful about the language he uses. That's why he wasn't more direct. But *in context*, his meaning was plain; if Wolf Blitzer got it, it *had* to be plain. 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/
