Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> > Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here.
> > Life's too short,
> Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you
> feel, why are you so willing to engage in "point-by-point games" at
> other times?
I'm human. I'm inconsistent. So sue me. Seriously, as I answered in another post,
I don't have enough information yet, I don't believe, to address this talk
directly to the Iraq situation per se. I believe that in general prophecies tend
to be broader than just one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all
of us, or most of us).
> > and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear
> > and unamibiguous.
> And he clearly, unambiguously did not mention Iraq.
As I did not. It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a
criticism of US foreign policy, but I'm not trying to put words into Elder
Nelson's mouth. Incidentally, it's a bit ironic, because I'm not so sure there's
actually going to be a war with Iraq. I think Bush's tactics are not direct here.
I have an inkling of what I think he might be up to, but I can't read his mind
and it's too soon to tell. Let's just say that I think he's trying to kill more
than one bird with one stone, and there'll be little violence on the streets of
Baghdad in the near future.
> > The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do
> > with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference
> > weekend) was specific and it was unbiased.
> Seems I recently critiqued an Economist article you referenced and
> demonstrated its tremendous bias.
So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take what you just
wrote and say, because you used an emotional word like "tremendous" that you're
biased, and I don't have to listen to you? Actually I value your input, even when
I think it's biased and even when I'm arguing against it. And fwiw, I think
you're giving yourself too much credit.
> I think you'll have a hard time
> maintaining that the Economist's articles are unbiased. But maybe I'm
> wrong. Can you give a URL to the specific article you're citing?
I actually posted the whole thing here. It was only a week ago.
But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the article. Why do you
need a URL to it again?
> > There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and
> > bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own
> > minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho.
> Well, it's easy for you to claim my "critical reading skills" aren't
> where they should be. You certainly might be right. But I notice you
> never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim
> that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists.
In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. I don't mean to
imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors, but we are members of a church
whose official policy is to proclaim peace and renounce war. That can certainly
be said to be a pacifist point of view. You don't have to fit ALL definitions of
a word (not in English, a notoriously ambiguous language at best) to be able to
use it. Else why bother even to try using words? Let's communicate in source
> > Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out,
> > and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently.
> Apparently that's not the case. I was indeed "paying attention to the
> thread", and it looked to me like you were dismissing his sources as
> biased and proclaiming your own to be unbiased.
As I've said several times, I dismissed his source as careless and therefore
biased. That's an important distinction. His source said that according to the
Israeli military intelligence (no citation given), Jane's (no citation given)
said such-and-such. I did a search of Jane's website (I can't afford the hard
copy -- their subs are hundreds of dollars a year, but I did occasionally look at
it in the provincial government library, so am familiar with the publication) and
found not a single reference to *any* Israeli military intelligence reference to
anything. So what am I supposed to think about an article that uses vague and 2nd
hand sources? At least the Economist cites its sources.
> > I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word
> > to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by
> > calling me a liar.
> I don't believe Dan was calling you a liar, though of course I could be
> wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying
> that term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as
> unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say,
> in effect, "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then
> you're blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word."
You put that in quotation marks. That implies I wrote those words. Please retract
that accusation. I didn't. Okay, I also see that you said, "in effect." That
means that that's how you read my words. Well, I'm here to tell you that you did
not read them properly, that that is not what I wrote, and it's not what I meant.
I have said at least 3 or 4 times now what I meant: that I feel I have
contributed all I can to the exchange between Dan and myself and find no purpose
in continuing. And I'm still waiting for Dan's clarification. I said I'd give him
the last word and it turned out to be "liar". That and nothing else. If not
ungentlemanly, then at least a wasted opportunity.
> > I'm off this thread. Elder Nelson's words are very clear, and
> > if you want to twist them so as to make yourself feel more
> > comfortable, fine.
> I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe you're twisting Elder
> Nelson's words. Please return the courtesy.
Well, if you insist. I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe your're
twisting Elder Nelson's and my words.
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!