Re: New Orleans, The part that pisses me off about it...

Wage: I split my follow-up into two separate postings. We're
discussing New Orleans in the other split. What we are discussing here
is your quotation error. And the secondary error in your claims:

>> " I always have, and always will be able to back up every assertion I
>> make."

I have three suggestions for you:

1. Check your quotations! If you put quotation marks around something,
Pease make sure that you provided an accurate quote. Cutting then
pasting the quotation into a search engine will often work to help you
verify your quotations and avoid such mistakes.

2. When you do something like this, acknowledge the mistake and move
on.

3. Please drop the bloody pretense that you "[...] always have, and
always will be able to back up every assertion [you] make."

How about it?

--phil


On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:31:32 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>in article k490j1tsiffcihiakilmu0nhta0c5pvvrc@xxxxxxx, Phil Earnhardt at
>pae@xxxxxxx wrote on 9/20/05 11:36:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:19:40 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What a crock, indeed. Who exactly are you quoting here?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quoting George W. Bush in his TV interview interview with Diane
>>>>> Sawyer,\
>>>>
>>>> You're not quoting anybody. You put quotation marks around something that
>>>> nobody said; googling on your statement on the web returns no hits.
>>
>> [No response.]
>>
>>>> Do you understand this simple principle, Wage? If you're going to put
>>>> quotation
>>>> marks around something, it makes good sense to ensure that you're actually
>>>> quoting somebody.
>>
>> [No response.]
>>
>>>>>>> Feel safe and secure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. I'm have no idea what can protect us from your mis-quotings and
>>>>>> mis-attributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Name one mis-quote or mis-attribution. Just one.
>>>>
>>>> Your words above are a mis-quote You put quote marks around a statement that
>>>> wasn't a quote.
>>>>
>>>> You owe the newsgroup an apology.
>>
>> [No response.]
>>
>>>> That is a strange statement from somebody who put quotation marks around
>>>> something that no public official said.
>>>>
>>>> You do have cut-and-paste on your computer, right? There is absolutely no
>>>> excuse for this kind of a mistake.
>>>>
>>>>> I always have, and always will be able to back up every assertion I make.
>>>>
>>>> Then it's time for some serious introspection. In this thread, you
>>> [mis-]quoted a public official.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I did.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> You should also drop the pretense that you are "always able to back up
>> every assertion that [you] make." You failed to do that in this
>> thread; you provided a bogus quotation.
>>
>>> I should have said "I don't think anybody anticipated the
>>> breach of the levees.² instead
>>> of ³nobody could have anticipated ...
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>>> So that means I was totally wrong about it, huh?
>>
>> Your quotation is an assertion of fact. Providing a mis-quotation
>> demonstrates that you fail to meet your own standards:
>>
>> " I always have, and always will be able to back up every assertion I
>> make."
>>
>> I have three suggestions:
>>
>> 1. Check your quotations! If you put quotation marks around something,
>> Pease make sure that you provided an accurate quote. Cutting then
>> pasting the quotation into a search engine will often work to help you
>> verify your quotations and avoid such mistakes.
>>
>> 2. When you do something like this, acknowledge the mistake and move
>> on.
>>
>> 3. Please drop the bloody pretense that you "[...] always have, and
>> always will be able to back up every assertion [you] make."
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --phil
>>
> How about this, Phil:
>
>Where is the support for your parsing of the President's words. Help us out
>here since you seem to "know" that he meant something other than what he
>actually said.
>
>What he said was:
>
>"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did
>anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result,
>much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and
>will."
>
>Where is your support?
>
>Wage Peace

.

Relevant Pages
Loading