--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > In the discussion in question, to tell you the truth Judy, your > words were ambiguous to me. I did, without checking the wording, > with all honest intent, state that you had acknowledged that I had > read "IT". Upon checking, I saw that "IT" could be interpreted as > one of several things. i was referring to one context -- which was > accurate, and it appears from your vile, you were referring to > another context.
Well, if you look back on the whole exchange, you'll see that "context" could not have referred to anything but the original interview. For you to think it referred to something *I* had said is beyond absurd. > The take-away is that words, particularly when pronouns are used, > can be interpreted by a group of different readers in a variety of > ways. To claim the ones own interpretation is "self-evident" and > all others are just studid, -- well such an attitude speaks for > itself. "Self-evident" was the term I applied to what Joe Wilson meant, not to the interpretation of a pronoun. What he meant was not self-evident out of context, which is why I kept referring you to the context of Wilson's original remark, i.e., in the interview. Now, let's look back at where you went wrong, because it didn't have anything to do with not knowing what the antecedent of "it" was. I said: "I'd just suggest that you READ THE STATEMENT IN CONTEXT, as I did. Then it becomes obvious what he meant." And you responded: "I did do that, you already acknolwedged thst I did that. Memeory problem? or just denial?" By the time we got to "it," in other words, you were already thoroughly lost; you then went back and quoted a completely different part of the conversation having to do with my telling you to reread something *I* had written that you'd gotten mixed up--nothing whatsoever to do with reading Wilson's statement in context. I mean, you could hardly have gotten it more bassackwards, in an attempt to impugn *my* credibility. It really was hilarious. > With good intent, I took some time to craft a response that upon > reading several times, you may find some interesting insights. No, hon, sorry, no insights in there. Just blather. > Its funny that you throw around such heavy words, "you screwed up > badly" regarding someones precieved misunderstanding of your > precious words. It shows how tightly you must feel ownership of > your thoughts and ideas, how they form a part of your essential > identity. *You* seem to have thought it was pretty important, given your announcement that you had "put another huge dent" in my "facade of infallibility" (that's your fantasy, by the way, that I have such a facade; and of course the notion that you'd put a dent in anything except your own credibility is hilarious). You continued that this was "a sad day for indoctrination and fanaticism." At that point I was laughing so hard I could hardly type my response. <snip> > I could not find the Blitz Wilson Transcript on CNN, but I got the > video clip -- which has a lot more context and nuance than a > transcript anyway. Interesting in several regards. > > The most amazing one is that in listening to the questions and > resposnes, there is FAR more ambiguity in Wilson's response than I > had imagined. That you can go on and on for 8 posts honking to the > world how clear and self-evident the words in context, when in > listening in context they are clearly open-ended, is simply > phenomenal. Well, sorry, but now I no longer have any faith in your ability to understand the situation. In any case, AP has now corrected its story; Wilson in another interview today has confirmed that he meant what I said he meant to start with. Oh, finally, some homework for you: See if you can figure out why the phrase "self-evident to me" (or to anybody else) is oxymoronic. > I invite all to view the 11 min clip (see videos half way down). It > brings up a lot of other good points. But it is particulalry > insightful to see how ambiguous and open-ended the 'clandestine' > operative issue is left. > http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html 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/
