Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + Line 53:
Line 54: + + + Line 61:
Line 65: + + − +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers": more full response
:::*I reject the validity of this assertion.
:::*I reject the validity of this assertion.
::::You dont think ABC News using air time to explain that they're distorting things counts as them being challenges in the public sphere? You dont think John McCain (R-AZ) and John Murtha (D-I forget) constitute bipartisan rebuffment?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You dont think ABC News using air time to explain that they're distorting things counts as them being challenges in the public sphere? You dont think John McCain (R-AZ) and John Murtha (D-I forget) constitute bipartisan rebuffment?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::McCain did not challenge the veracity of the claims, McCain challenged the appropriateness of their motives in the political process vs a consensus of national healing and reconciliation over issues that divided the country. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::*''treating their evaluation as empirical proof ''
::*''treating their evaluation as empirical proof ''
:::*This would be analyized ''after'' "the first line of investigation" is complete, i.e. determining what are the Swifties claims.
:::*This would be analyized ''after'' "the first line of investigation" is complete, i.e. determining what are the Swifties claims.
::::I have not been arguing either way on this, and I'm not sure why you are, but I'm just saying that since their claims are in dispute, for the article on Kerry, in its current form, to impart the perception of this group as objective act is fallacious. You actually agreed to this above when you were talking about "verifiability" and I'm not sure why you dont recognize it coming from the other side.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I have not been arguing either way on this, and I'm not sure why you are, but I'm just saying that since their claims are in dispute, for the article on Kerry, in its current form, to impart the perception of this group as objective act is fallacious. You actually agreed to this above when you were talking about "verifiability" and I'm not sure why you dont recognize it coming from the other side.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::*''since their claims are in dispute''
:::::*There is only one who can dispute their claims, John Kerry. Kerry can bring forword eyewitnesses to support his position, eyewitnesses who's own credibility must be examined. ''ABC News'' '''cannot''' dispute the claims; they can investigate, however ''primea facia'' evidence shows ''ABC News'' investigation to be skewed. Now, if you make reference to ''ABC News'', ''et al'', as "disputing claims", that is a reflection of a flawed methodological approach. So one needs to be cautious here in discussing how we are to go about conducting our own investigation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::*''current perceptions''
::*''current perceptions''
:::Faulty premise and statement; "their book" presumably refers to O'Niell's book. O'Niell is singular and distinct from the SBVT, so a determination has to be made of what relationship, if any, exists between SBVT and the publication of the O'Neills book.
:::Faulty premise and statement; "their book" presumably refers to O'Niell's book. O'Niell is singular and distinct from the SBVT, so a determination has to be made of what relationship, if any, exists between SBVT and the publication of the O'Neills book.
::::Except he's the public face of the group and as such, presumably, speaks for them not simply in television interviews, but also his published works. To argue that the book has nothing to do with the group when they share the same arguments and ideology as well as the same membership is lunacy.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Except he's the public face of the group and as such, presumably, speaks for them not simply in television interviews, but also his published works. To argue that the book has nothing to do with the group when they share the same arguments and ideology as well as the same membership is lunacy.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::*We cannot presume a connection without investigating it first. That there has been a coordinated effort to discredit both there is no denying, but we cannot begin an investigation based upon what may be a deliberate, and flawed presumption and prejudice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::*''They have... a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously''
::*''They have... a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously''
:::*Indeed by the Mosaic covenant, we will determine, "by the testimony of two witness, a matter is established. So we need to examine the credibility of ''all'' witnesses present, including Mr. John Kerry. (evidence such as, "I voted for it before I voted against it", or beating up on Mary Cheney before 80 million viewers to further his own career needs to be examined to determine the character of this witness). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Indeed by the Mosaic covenant, we will determine, "by the testimony of two witness, a matter is established". So we need to examine the credibility of ''all'' witnesses present, including Mr. John Kerry. (evidence such as, "I voted for it before I voted against it", or beating up on Mary Cheney before 80 million viewers to further his own career needs to be examined to determine the character of this witness). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::And this is just plain classy. You're trying to steer the argument away from anything I was trying to say into your own agenda to get these guys more attention, and use two non sequitur attacks on Kerry to do so. Yeah, he "beat up on Mary Cheney" when he said his father loves her. Yeah, you can vote for the same exact Senate bill two different times in the Senate in two different ways. Spot on. Good for you. Have a cookie.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::And this is just plain classy. You're trying to steer the argument away from anything I was trying to say into your own agenda to get these guys more attention, and use two non sequitur attacks on Kerry to do so. Yeah, he "beat up on Mary Cheney" when he said his father loves her. Yeah, you can vote for the same exact Senate bill two different times in the Senate in two different ways. Spot on. Good for you. Have a cookie.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::*So would you agree determining exactly what the claims stated by O'Neill and the SBVT is the first line of investigation? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::*So would you agree determining exactly what the claims stated by O'Neill and the SBVT is the first line of investigation? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)