Occam's Razor, and the memo

Shall I take it that you now back off your claim of strong evidence that you stated here when presenting your link?
Suddenly said:
There is evidence:



http://slate.msn.com/id/2106833/

(The orginal contains links for the points above)

Saying that there is no evidence that he shirked his duties is a whole different matter than proving the specific allegations in a memo.

That this kind of behaviour was hardly remarkable at the time needs to be considered, as the guard really didn't seem to care that he was playing fast and loose. In the end there is strong evidence to suggest he did not fufill his obligation, but there is no evidence to suggest that anyone really cared. It appears likely that he wound up with a sort of defacto waiver in that he was never called on his failure to be reassigned. Maybe there is an explicit waiver somewhere. Who knows.

Whether that speaks more to the casual attitude during the end of Vietnam or to the value of Bush's service is left to the imagination. I really don't care either way...
Click to expand...

Now you claim some evidence was the reason for the link?

Which doesn't really change anything about the facts. The reason that article was posted was to show that some evidence existed. That was it. Apparently this concept is harder to grasp than I thought.
Click to expand...
Bolded by me.

Yes, the concept is rather hard to grasp when you keep changing your standards. You related to Kerry?

By the way, are you aware that most people have better manners than to intentionally misspell a person's name when having a discussion? If it was meant to be a joke, the joke is on you. It gives people some insight into your personality and doesn't reflect well on you.

Bob
 
BobK said:



By the way, are you aware that most people have better manners than to intentionally misspell a person's name when having a discussion? If it was meant to be a joke, the joke is on you. It gives people some insight into your personality and doesn't reflect well on you.

Bob
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are talking about. I have never referred to you by name. Care to specify what you mean here, since being exact seems to be important to you?

I see you have also after close study came up with what you think is a contradiction. That I said "strong" evidence than "some evidence."

Perhaps I will say that there is "some strong evidence." "Strong" is completely subjective so I have no clue what you are whining about. Keep digging.

I am curious about the name thing, seeing that I have no clue as I have never mentioned you by name. If it has to do with me mentioning "Bob Wise" as being my leader, I suggest you google for who Bob Wise is and admit you are a moron for thinking that this was mocking you. I'll help by linking to the google search to save you the step of doing it yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Bob+Wise

If it was something else let me know. I do not stoop to those kinds of tactics and am curious as to what has led you to conclude that I am mocking someone's name...
 
rockoon said:
Is that right?
Click to expand...
Yup.


Thanks for letting us know how blind you are. yes Bush took of 6 months one year and 3 months on another. Thanks. Thats sums it up. Thats what happened.
Click to expand...
You left out the failure to find a unit as promised when he went to Harvard, and are also incorrectly assuming that that link is the sum total of all the evidence. It is an example given to rebut the claim that no evidence exists.

Bush also fullfilled all his requirements and was honorably discharged due to it.
Click to expand...
Maybe fufilled all the requirements he needed to to recieve such a discharge. When I posted that nobody back then seemed to care this is pretty much what I was saying. I'd think people would get the hint that I am not presenting an argument otherwise and just suggesting that evidence exists beyond nominal that there duties that he did not perform. An honorable discharge only suggests that if in fact such a failure occured it was not significant, or that the same connections that got him into the guard in the first place smoothed things over...
 
Suddenly said:
Yup. [/B] You left out the failure to find a unit as promised when he went to Harvard, and are also incorrectly assuming that that link is the sum total of all the evidence. It is an example given to rebut the claim that no evidence exists.
[/B] Maybe fufilled all the requirements he needed to to recieve such a discharge. When I posted that nobody back then seemed to care this is pretty much what I was saying. I'd think people would get the hint that I am not presenting an argument otherwise and just suggesting that evidence exists beyond nominal that there duties that he did not perform. An honorable discharge only suggests that if in fact such a failure occured it was not significant, or that the same connections that got him into the guard in the first place smoothed things over... [/B]
Click to expand...

Evidence also exists for alien abductions and the Loch Ness monster. The only problem tho, is that it is all of the same quality as that which exists about Bush's Guard record.

Oh,...and there's that bloody glove too.... "If it don't fit, you must acquit!"

Gotta love you lawyer types! :rolleyes:

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Evidence also exists for alien abductions and the Loch Ness monster. The only problem tho, is that it is all of the same quality as that which exists about Bush's Guard record.

Click to expand...
Depends on the claim. If it is about conduct that he got away with based on connections, the absence, failure to find a unit when he promised to, and the missed physical are evidence. No matter how hard you waive your hand...

What confuses me is why you even care? Why not take the high road, admit this stuff happened and just point out it both was another era and that in the end it couldn't have been that bad seeing that nobody seemed to care? It isn't like his very presence in the guard in the historical context isn't sufficient evidence of his connections for any anti-elitist argument, so the whole thing just makes no sense...


Oh,...and there's that bloody glove too.... "If it don't fit, you must acquit!"

Gotta love you lawyer types! :rolleyes:

-z
Click to expand...

Yes. They should have just shot OJ on sight rather than have a trial and allow him to have lawyers that would actually try to argue his case. The lawyers should have just came in and said to the jury that OJ must be guilty because everything the police says is true and it was on TV and everything.

Blame the lawyers though, when someone gets away. Perhaps you should curse those darned jerks that decided that people accused of crimes have a right to a lawyer and trial by jury?

ETA- I didn't mispell your name here did I? I had a bad habit of calling Jocko "Jacko," but I'm getting better. I could have sworn his name was "Jacko".....


But as far as I know I never called you "dikzilla" or riksillia" or anything like that. If I did it was a mistake.... :D
 
Oh, it matters...because there is at least equally strong evidence behind the largely obscured allegations that Kerry never showed up for any of *his* active Reserve committments, and instead met with enemy leaders and would be Congressional assassins while still a commissioned officer, then abused his office as Senator to cover that up, and award himself the only Silver Star with 'V' device in the known universe...

...and THEN made military service the centerpiece of his campaign, complete with bogus claims of being in Special Forces operations, and forged memos about Bush.

Taken as part of a lifelong pattern of behavior indicating an egomaniac with an utter contempt for the rules (like many politicians), and added to the ominous claims at the Democratic Convention that anyone not 'for' the Democrats isn't a real American, I for one don't want to blindly fall for 'Anybody but Bush' as a rationale for handing the party of the Klan and Jim Crow, the additional powers to silence enemies and run roughshod over civil rights that are afforded by the 'War on Terror' and the Patriot Act, not to mention the Democrat's pending legislation to reinstate the draft...

Faced with the prospect of the devil we know versus the devil we don't know, I think each and every question about Bush AND about Kerry matters very, very, much.
 
crimresearch said:
Oh, it matters...because there is at least equally strong evidence behind the largely obscured allegations that Kerry never showed up for any of *his* active Reserve committments, and instead met with enemy leaders
Click to expand...
This is the second or third time I've read this allegation, but never anywhere except this forum. Could you supply a link?
 
I could post another prior example, but I think this is sufficient.

I did. Bob Wise.This should be somewhat obvious from exchanges between the Virginians and I. My native language will also become clear.
Click to expand...

Once again bolded by me, I wouldn't want you to accuse me of altering your words without saying I did.

Gee, not only a shortage manners, but a shortage of memory.

Let's see. Two syllables. Both capitalized. Sure looks to me like a name. But then, being an attorney you probably have a different definition of what is, errr.. a name is.

Bob

Edit to change words to syllables
 
Suddenly said:
This should be somewhat obvious from exchanges between the Virginians and I. My native language will also become clear.
Click to expand...
Well, here in the United States of America, the first sentence above would properly have been rendered, "This should be somewhat obvious from exchanges between the Virginians and me." (emphasis mine)

:p
 
Gee. I didn't know Bob Wise was the leader of a country. As I first queried you. What country would that be?

If you were refering to a governor of a state in the U.S, then can I safely assume that George Bush is also your leader?
 
I withdraw my assertion that you have a very short memory. I neglected to include the word country in my last query about your leader. I should have known better. It was in my first query.

I should have realized that being an attorney, you would give no more information than would barely fill the bill.

I'll lay it off to my not being precise enough to be understandable to an attorney.

If you can provide a reasonable definiton from Merriam Webster of the word "admitted" that fits with your assertion of my "admitted bias", or withdraw your assertion, I will not have to consider you as the type of person that randomly casts aspersions, with no consideration of others.

A Kerryesque, nuanced response is not suitable.

Bob
 
BPSCG said:
This is the second or third time I've read this allegation, but never anywhere except this forum. Could you supply a link?
Click to expand...

This is a list of the allegations based on documents supposedly obtained by Steve Nash, the head of authentiseal.org.

http://www.tbqforums.com/iForums/cafe/printpage.cgi?forum=1&discussion=1954

http://www.authentiseal.org/contact.htm


And this is a reference to the Silver Star fabrication:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040828-103521-2612r.htm

Since the initial flap, nothing else has surfaced...I would certainly want to know more before I assumed that there was nothing to it, but again, Kerry refuses to release his records.

And there is nothing in the years of debunking already done by these Navy SEALs (or the Stolen Valor researchers) that would seem to support the partisan accusations of the sort leveled against the SBVfT...

So I am more than a little interested in why something apparently this big hasn't made it to Dan Rather's attention yet.
;)
 
varwoche said:
How about an actual valid news source?
Click to expand...

You mean like the ones that broke the Rather/Memogate story, while the bloggers were sitting around in their pajamas defending CBS?

The whole point is that these allegations are far juicier than Bush's attendance record, and come from far more credible sources than the ones about Kerry gaming the system, and yet no major media outlet has mentioned them, even to refute them...

That is the significant clue here...the fact that the media has done nothing.

(And you really need to take down that avatar now that you've publicly failed the Hound of the Baskervilles test).
 
crimresearch said:
You mean like the ones that broke the Rather/Memogate story, while the bloggers were sitting around in their pajamas defending CBS?
Click to expand...

Rather screwed up; I'd say touche if I were an apologist except I'm not.

Now, has this fundamentally changed the lay of the land? Are random internet sites now considered evidence? Are you suggesting the mainstream press is across the board ignoring a juicy story? Does your conspiracy theory assume that the press is more enamored with Kerry than it is with sensationalism?

When you provide unknown internet sites as evidence, it's hard not to be just a tad bit astounded by your cryptic, more-skeptical-than-though bit.
 
"...your conspiracy theory assume that the press is more enamored with Kerry than it is with sensationalism..."


Why? Because you label it so? You haven't participated in any of these threads for weeks, AFAIK, and you're going to come in guns blazing now, and without bothering to read any of the previous posts, start cramming words into people's mouths, while proclaiming your innocent motives?

Same old VW trollage, I see, cherry picking items which someone has *cited* in order to point out that they are of interest to *others*, and fabricating a position which the person doing the citing never claimed that they held.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, I notice that *you* have constantly cited what the SwiftBoat vets have to say...does that make you one of them? You must agree with them, or you wouldn't keep bringing them up, so are you too a thoroughly discredited liar now?
Do you deny citing their words time and time again in your posts? A simple yes or no will suffice, just answer the question without attempting to 'explain it's context'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where the ◊◊◊◊ do you get off pulling a stunt like that with my remarks about what someoene else has said?
 
Suddenly said:

ETA- I didn't mispell your name here did I? I had a bad habit of calling Jocko "Jacko," but I'm getting better. I could have sworn his name was "Jacko".....


But as far as I know I never called you "dikzilla" or riksillia" or anything like that. If I did it was a mistake.... :D
Click to expand...

dikzilla?? :D That's what my wife calls it...er...me....er....nevermind!

:p

-z
 
BPSCG said:
Well, here in the United States of America, the first sentence above would properly have been rendered, "This should be somewhat obvious from exchanges between the Virginians and me." (emphasis mine)

:p
Click to expand...

Yeah... I was just trying to make you Virginians feel better by speaking in your native tongue.

Every grammatical or spelling "error" I make is for this purpose.

What I won't do to help sure up relations with you ignorant silly backwoods people...


:D
 
Suddenly said:
Yeah... I was just trying to make you Virginians feel better by speaking in your native tongue.

Every grammatical or spelling "error" I make is for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Hi, Mr, Hall! When did you move to West (motto: "Squirrel - It's Not Just For Breakfast Any More") Virginia? I remember your advanced algebra class from when I lived in New York, even if I don't remember much algebra any more.

Remember how at least once per class you'd screw something up on the blackboard and somebody (sometimes everybody) would say, "Wait a minute Mr. Hall! That's not right! It's supposed to be NEGATIVE x!" and you would get this embarrassed look on your face and make the correction and say, "Just making sure you were paying attention."?

And everybody would laugh, because we all knew you were full of it?

Remember?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom