Harry Pollard wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> You use "sic" to tell the reader that the word is intentional, though it
> doesn't look right.
>
> I think that Bush mis-spoke but then he was supported by his staff. On the
> other hand, it might have been the speech writer who blew it. Then, Bush
> read it. And it was carved in concrete. You are right, it was probably
> conservation and not consumption.
[snip]
Sorry, this is not what I meant, and hopefully not what I
said. I meant and hopefully said that the word was
meant but somebody wanted to make sure that nobody
thought it was a *typo in the transcript that inaccurately
mis-quoted the speaker*. You seem to me to be saying that
somebody meant to say "conservation". I did not mean to
assert that anybody meant to say "conservation".
I firmly believe Bush believes in consumption not
conservation -- except perhaps for the geo-thermal
HVAC system in his private house on his private
ranch which nobody is allowed to see for reasons
of national security.
Do we agree on what I asserted or at least meant to
assert?
"Yours in discourse [which is potentially
iterative and reflexive...]...."
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
