Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,411
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers": methodology and proceedure
::...I'm sorry, apparently I think I'm saying one thing and you're managing to hear it coming out as the exact opposite. I'm arguing that, since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena, that treating their evaluation as empirical proof and making statements as fact whose truth is depentant on the veracity of those SBVT claims, is ridiculous. In this way I'm trying to argue the exact opposite of that same defunct WP policy, and that the Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid for myriad reasons, not least of which is that they go against the official record. They are the ones making the remarkable claims that go against current perceptions. The onus is on them to provide proof, and in their book, by and large, they provide none, but rather a great deal of conspiracy-theory speculation (Kerry wrote his own commendation, got them to be accepted as fact, was awarded purple hearts for razor burns, etc). They have, in what I would hope is any professional's view, a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously, and to repeat their unfounded claims as though it were a matter of undisputed record is reckless and irresponsible.
::...I'm sorry, apparently I think I'm saying one thing and you're managing to hear it coming out as the exact opposite. I'm arguing that, since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena, that treating their evaluation as empirical proof and making statements as fact whose truth is depentant on the veracity of those SBVT claims, is ridiculous. In this way I'm trying to argue the exact opposite of that same defunct WP policy, and that the Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid for myriad reasons, not least of which is that they go against the official record. They are the ones making the remarkable claims that go against current perceptions. The onus is on them to provide proof, and in their book, by and large, they provide none, but rather a great deal of conspiracy-theory speculation (Kerry wrote his own commendation, got them to be accepted as fact, was awarded purple hearts for razor burns, etc). They have, in what I would hope is any professional's view, a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously, and to repeat their unfounded claims as though it were a matter of undisputed record is reckless and irresponsible.
::And of course its the official account, otherwise Kerry wouldn't have gotten the medals, and of course it hadn't been challenged before or more hay would've been made of it.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::And of course its the official account, otherwise Kerry wouldn't have gotten the medals, and of course it hadn't been challenged before or more hay would've been made of it.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::*''since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena''
:::*I reject the validity of this assertion.
::*''treating their evaluation as empirical proof ''
:::*What's been proposed above is to deteremine "''exactly'' what... [the]... claims are" as "the first line of investigation".
::*''Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid ''
:::*This would be analyized ''after'' "the first line of investigation" is complete, i.e. determining what are the Swifties claims.
::*''current perceptions''
:::*General statement without foundation.
::*''in their 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.
::*''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)