Re: Found the actual quote by John Gibson

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Charles Beauchamp:
"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JG08Hw.Apq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Charles Beauchamp" <c.e.beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Charles Beauchamp" <c.e.beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Charles Beauchamp:
"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JFxLzL.53G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Charles Beauchamp" <c.e.beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Rich fired up something utterly silly and completely out
of context that bore little resemblance to what Gibson
was stating.

The quote from Rich's memory:

"You'd have to imagine a fictional person to imagine
a Democratic president taking America to war."

The actual quote:

"I know, you have to imagine a Democrat going to war,
but let's just say it's possible."

No, you're the ass here, Mr. Schrumpf. And
a stupid one, at that. The quote is essentially the
same, and all the previous arguments still apply.

The quote is most certainly not the same.

The quote is essentially same, Charles. What
idea is different?

All the other words around both statements for one thing. Try
reading
the actual thread you are talking about Ralph.

Funny how you'd leave the above sentence of yours
in, Charles, and then snip my reply, to wit, that I was
in the thread from the start, long before your sorry
ass showed up in it.


Which has nothing to do with anything at all so it is irrelevant. Or do you
have some kind of strange newsreader that only let's you see a thread that
you are posting in? I know my newsreader allows me to read any thread I
want to whether I comment in it or not. And regardless, you clearly need to
actually read what was said and when because what you are stating here bears
no resemblance to what was actually said.

They both say the same thing,
that you have to use your imagination to even
conceive of a Democrat ever going to war. Which
is bull***, because FDR, Truman, Johnson, and
Clinton all did it. You don't have to imagine
*****. There are numerous examples.

Thus proving that you do in fact have the same illness that he has
since
that is clearly not the context at all of what Gibson was talking
about...as
has already been clearly explained in this thread by Mr. Schrumpf.

What did I get wrong or leave out that was important in the post
where I gave the actual quote and the context?


It is amazing that you are asking that question given what you
said...what
you said about what Gibson said..and what Gibson in fact said...all of
which
are repeated in this thread. To put it simply...yes you are a liar.
You
lied about the context of what Gibson said. You lied then about your
quoting
of him. You even lied about how accurately you quoted him given all
the
stuff you were saying in each of those posts. Do you and Ralph share
the
same damaged brain?

Heh heh. I see a whole lot of chest beating,
foot stomping, and name calling from you, Charles, but
I don't see any semantic and gramatical comparison
analysis between the two sentences to "PR00F!@!!"

Liar. It has already been posted. The actual quotes have been posted.

Yeah, I posted them above, dumnass. We know
they're not exactly word-for-word the same.
What's missing is your lexical analysis explaining
why you think the differences are non-trivial,
and somehow change the meaning of the sentence.


The differences have also been posted. No reasonable minded reading of what
Gibson said can be equated to the silliness that Rich threw into the mix.

Here's my entire post, and it's all I said about Gibson and his
silly statement until I got the exact quote:

??I was just listening to a Fox Podcast of John Gibson's My Word,
??and he threw in a beauty...that you'd have to imagine a fictional
??person to imagine a democratic president taking America to war.

That actually makes the quote BETTER than what he said, and, if
anything, includes some of the surrounding ideas that Gibson was
trying to include, according to you. Most of the wingnuts on the
group actually agreed with my original paraphrase, so I don't see
what you are whining about.

Rich lied about his own posting.

No he didn't.

Yes he did.

Exactly what lie did I tell? Now you're lying about me.

And you're still ducking the
issue. You claim the quotes don't mean the same
exact thing (even though some of the words are
slightly different). How do the quotes differ,
Charles, in any significant and meaning-changing
way?

The context is how they differ Ralph. What is so hard about this? Gibson
obviously didn't mean FDR for heck's sakes. Rich suggested that he did by
obvious context of what Rich said about Gibson's words. It was utterly
silly on Rich's part. It is stupid on your part to keep going around in
circles. If you don't get it then you are a fool or a moron. Take your
pick.


that Rich's paraphrase differed from the original
quote in any matter at all significant to the
meaning. And I don't seee any additional paragraphs
from Gibson's transcript to "PRO0F!@!!" that the
one sentence's meaning was somehow "D1ST0RT3D BECUZ
1T WAS TAK3N OUT 0F C0NTEXT!@!!!1!!"

You are an idiot. Rich completely took Gibson out of context

There you go again. Do you know what "out of
context" means, Charles?

Yes I do Ralph. It is obvious from the Gibson's statement that Rich took an
absurd meaning to get to where Rich began talking on it.

It means the sentence means
something other than it means when taken alone, if
you combine it with the preceding few paragraphs to
get a context. In order to prove that Rich took
Gibson out of context, you have to post those few
paragraphs and show *why* they make Gibson's sentence
mean something other than it means when it stands
alone. You can't just pathetically and repeatedly
shout the phrase "OUT OF CONT3XT!@!!".


Hey *** for brains...that has already been done.

We're waiting, Charles. Show how the meaning
of Gibson's sentence somehow changes when combined
with Gibson's preceding few paragraphs leading up to
it and giving it context.

To get you rolling, here's an example of something
taken out of context:

Person A: Joe said, "I hate black people."

Person B: No way!

Person A: Way! It's right in the transcript.

Person B: But you've taken it out of context! The
complete sentence was, "As an American, it
really bothers me to hear someone say, 'I hate
black people.'"

So Charles, how is Gibson's remark taken out of context
to where it supposedly doesn't really mean what it says?

Gibson's comments were taken out of context by Rich to get a meaning that
Gibson's actual comments clearly did not mean. How else would you get
anything to be out of context?

What did I say above that was outside of what Gibson meant?

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.
.