152
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + + + + + + +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers"
::*''since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena''
::*''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.
:::*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)
::*''treating their evaluation as empirical proof ''
::*''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".
:::*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 ''
::*''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.
:::*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)
::*''current perceptions''
::*''current perceptions''
:::*General statement without foundation.
:::*General statement without foundation.
::::It meant "what the, as of then unchallenged, record had shown at that point." I rather think that would have been obvious from the context but if you needed it explained to you then you only needed to ask.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::*''in their book''
::*''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.
:::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)
::*''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)