"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116462684.f9dc70e659401a6c0a2b86022dd896a6@teranews...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3f1ughF5kk33U1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116447630.9dc6bbd48b2ca73b78e8435e3ba8281a@teranews...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3f1k1bF5hubaU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116387799.39afb5db49012bde2b1ead62d0e8a684@teranews...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3evnesF55iblU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116377366.f66687bbf74d73c39e661e35821bac28@teranews...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3evd6jF56n9sU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116365973.783cffa87dc9ce4ee9c860598cf9f5c8@teranews...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3ev2ppF564l8U1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116335546.68f74a07a50d2dba01e66467d1d84b1c@teranews..
.
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3et5g4F4r0rsU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116288745.89990ea6110ea63d8d304febecea4c0d@teranews..
.
johnebravo836 <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3esgfkF2del9U1 @individual.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
jay <jriddle73@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:sorh811n58pahv2qmju9f2325c43dsluk2@4ax.com:
[snip]
No, Fred, that was Bush and co. To quote what they
told the head of British intelligence in July 2002
about their decision to start a war, "the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy." The corporate press, fanatically pro-Bush
as always, has largely chosen to shield you from
this information, but it's still there, in cold
black and white.
That was quoted out of context, just like most of
the other quotes you've produced.
Would you mind explaining what that "context" was,
please?
The context is that the administration was putting
together its case for going to war against Saddam. The
memo is dated July of 2002. We went to the UN with the
case beginning in Considering that the war began in
March of 2003, that's not a tremendous amount of lead
time. There is no smoking gun there, no case can be
made that it proves that Bush or Blair were lying.
As usual with such out-of-context quotes, it's hard to
find a complete copy of the memo in question.
*****. A quick google search for the memo turns up
multiple hits with a complete copy of the memo with no
problem.
Well, thank you for citing it, in spite of your spite.
It's not necessary to thank me for pointing out your lies,
Fred. But your welcome anyway.
I'm not lying. You're trying to spin it, but I'm not lying
at all.
Ok - you're just sadly mistaken in your assertion that "it's
hard to find a copy of the memo in question."
I was tired.
Too tired to find and read the memo that you choose make
assertions about. Doesn't say much for your credibility.
Ask me how much I care.
There are hundreds of mentions on Google,
but they all seem to quote only that one partial
sentence. That is a *strong* indication that there is
more to the story than the original reporter wants to
print.
More *****. If the original reporter/news outlet
didn't want to show the rest of the story, why do they
have a copy of the memo available online? And it is not
just that one sentence. It is the whole memo.
And guess what? The full memo proves my case. Thanks
again.
Your welcome, again.
But I do have a question. If you haven't read the memo
before this, why have you dismissed mention of the memo as
being "out of context" on more than one occasion in this
newsgroup? If you haven't read the memo, isn't it kind of
hard to know what the context of it is?
I had read other commentary on the memo, which I was having
trouble refinding in my browser. And I was too tired to
Google it effectively. That's what I get for reading so many
different news sources and blogs.
:-)
So again, if you hadn't read it, why do you claim that people
are taking things out of context?
Because they are. It's obvious from the way the material was
presented since it wasn't even a complete sentence.
But you hadn't read the memo Fred. Once again, how can you
claim to know what the context is if you haven't read the memo?
I didn't claim to know the context, I simply pointed out that the
phrase was taken out of context. THAT much is obvious from the
simple fact that it wasn't even a complete sentence.
<Snip the rest of your sophistry.>
lol.
Just to recap:
Fred claims a sentence from a memo is being taken out of context.
Fred explains why he says that.
And in the process of "explaining" Fred admits that he hasn't actually
read the memo that he claims to know the context of.
Fred doesn't have to have the original to know that a sentence fragment
isn't a whole sentence.
But you do need to read the memo to know what the context of the memo is and
what the context of a sentence from the memo is. Whether or not it is a
sentence "fragment" is irrelevant, as you can use single sentences from
source material to support a point and still keep the sentence within its
original context. The point here is that you didn't read the memo so you
had no idea what the context of the sentence was.
Since you seem to be wrapped up in talking about sentence fragments, allow
me to point out that you couldn't have known that it wasn't a whole sentence
when you first cried that is was taken out of context because you hadn't
actually read the memo. You had no idea what the whole sentence was or what
the memo actually said at all because you hadn't read it. And it wasn't an
obvious sentence fragment either, as the only word missing from the sentence
that you cried foul about was the word "but". Here is the sentence
"fragment" that caused you to cry that it was being used out of context -
even though you didn't bother to read the memo that it came from: "the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Here's that
sentence in it's entirety: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy." Not much of a fragment or partial sentence, Fred.
You didn't read the memo and yet you claim to have known the context of the
memo. Sorry Fred, but you can't know the context if you don't actually read
the document.
Fred is asked by johnebravo836 to explain what that proper context
is. Fred then tells johnebravo836 what he claims is the proper
context for the sentence.
Fred repeats what he has read from other sources. He turns out to be
right, once the full memo is produced.
Fred claims he is right (which is apparently enough for him to think
he is right, regardless of reality) in his explanation about the
context of a memo that he didn't read. Fred claims he is right
because he has read "other sources", but didn't bother to read the
actual memo itself.
Too bad for you the actual memo has been posted in its entirety.
I posted the memo Fred. In fact I've posted it several times. So it's not
too bad for me. What is too bad, however, is that you decided to comment on
what the memo said without even bothering to read it. And now that you say
you've read it, you can't seem to comprehend what it says.
Fred admits that he hasn't actually read the memo where the
sentence he claims is being taken out of context came from. (It's
kind of hard to know the context of something you haven't actually
read, but that's our man Fred!)
Fred actually just "admits" that he can't find the copy of the
complete memo on the internet.
Which means that you didn't read it. You can't read something you
don't have a copy of.
I have a copy of it *now*.
Congratulations on finally getting a copy. I hope that you've finally read
it too. The issue, however, isn't about whether you have a copy *now*. The
issue is that you seem to think it is ok to make comments about something
that you haven't even read. What's worse is that your comments were meant
to discredit the viewpoint of someone else who had actually taken the time
to read what they were referring to.
Fred is asked more than once to explain how he can claim to know
the context of something that he admittingly hasn't read.
Fred then explains that it isn't necessary to know the.
Fred continues to state that he doesn't need to know the context of a
sentence in order to claim that it has been taken out of context.
That's obvious from the fact that it wasn't even a complete sentence.
Sorry Fred, it isn't obvious. Quoting one sentence or part of a sentence
doesn't automatically mean that it being used out of context. Nevertheless,
you couldn't have known whether it was or wasn't a complete sentence when
you first saw it because you hadn't even read the memo that the sentence
came from.
Allow me to repeat:
You had no idea what the whole sentence was or what the memo actually said
at all because you hadn't read it. And it wasn't an obvious sentence
fragment either, as the only word missing from the sentence that you cried
foul about was the word "but". Here is the sentence "fragment" that caused
you to cry that it was being used out of context - even though you didn't
bother to read the memo that it came from: "the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy." Here's that sentence in it's entirety: "But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Not much of
a fragment or partial sentence, Fred.
And so it goes round and round: Fred continues to state that he doesn't
need to know the context of a sentence in order to claim that it has been
taken out of context.
Fred then states that he didn't claim to know the context that he
has previously attempted to explain to johnebravo836.
Fred turns out to have been right after all, but G-Ride doesn't let
that distract him.
Fred again claims that he is right and thinks that is enought to make
it so, without ever actually explaining how anything has been taken
out of context.
Answered elsewhere.
You've never answered how anything was taken out of context except to go on
about incomplete sentences. You've even gone so far as to say that you
don't claim to know what the context is. Too bad that not reading the memo
and not knowing what the context of the sentence is didn't stop you from
telling others what they're supposed to think about the memo.
Fred runs away in a huff complaining about "sophistry".
Fred returns to provide further proof of his idiocy.
G-Ride continues to fantisize about how eloquent he isn't.
Fred continues to display how much of an idiot he is by insisting that he
doesn't need to actually read documents before he comments on what is and
isn't the context of the document.
G-Ride gives Fred another chance to call him a moron. Fred takes him
up on the offer.
Fred is reminded that the only moronic statements have come from Fred
himself. Fred continues to refuse to explain how he thinks he can
comment on the context of a memo (and attempt to explain that context
to someone else) without having actually read the memo in question.
Fred already explained about that. But don't let that prevent you from
fantasizing about how you're beating me down.
There's no fantasizing going on Fred, other than what must be swirling
around in your head. Nevertheless, I must have missed that explanation
then, Fred. If I did, my apologies. Please explain again how it is that
you think you can comment on the context of a memo and attempt to explain
that context to someone else without having actually read the memo in
question.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga."
- Dalai Llama
.
