A source document of some recent discussion: the Thursday interview between Joe Wilson and Wolf Blitzer on CNN in context (no snips between quotes. No other quotes/discussion directly on this topic):
******************************************* Wilson: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day Bob Novak blew her ID" Blitzer: But she had not been a clandestine officer for some time before that. Wilson: Thats not anything I can comment on. **************************************** Below is a series of FFL discussions on whether the words in the interview could be used to determine that with CERTAINTY that Wilson's wife was clandestine, whether the above interview showed such was "self-evident". To me, from this interview, the issue is clearly ambiguous. Based on the above interview, the perception that "I stated what he had meant by the words he actually said" -- a quote found in the below dialog -- is instructive on how our memories and cognitive apparatus can distort that which is said, and even the brightest among us can hear such ambiguous statements and feel with certainty that they are unabiguous and self-evident. To me its a great illustration of why we should be not to jump the gun and be CERTAIN, even if its compellingly logical and reasonable, what others mean -- before thoroughly checking with the source. <with snipping> Judy: Also, be aware there's an AP article on the same topic that has a *very* misleading sentence in reporting on yesterday's (Thursday) 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*. Anon: It needs clarification by Wilson -- which I assume he will provide today. Judy: I'm sure he will, yes. But he really shouldn't even have to; it's quite obvious what he meant, 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. Anon: It is ambiguous, but I am not sure which slant was meant. Judy: I just *told* you which "slant" was meant. 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. Anon: Yes, so lets wait till he does instead of putting words in his mouth. Judy: Nobody put words in his mouth. I stated what he had meant by the words he actually said. ***************************** 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/
