Occam's Razor, and the memo

[BPSCG]

A little of what you dismiss plus a whole slew of ratings pressure. [/B]

Not sure I follow. Are you saying Rather/CBS is stupid, evil, incompetent - at least a little bit? Somehow I can't see that. Sure, one person could be all that, but with so many fingers in this pie, you'd think someone there is not stupid, evil, and incompetent, and would have tried to stop this runaway train. Was there truly nobody at CBS who said, "Look, I love Kerry and hate Bush, and would love nothing better than for this to be true, but this thing smells bad and we really should check it out a lot better than we have."?

Bob Woodward is going to write a book about this whole episode someday.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm having a hard time buying the 'just an innocent oversight' after the virulent attacks on 'partisans' by Rather when the obvious contradictions were brought up.
Not to mention the attempts to 'hush' their own experts, and blame others, AND the continued refusal to reveal the source.

Somebody is gaming something here...question is who benefits the most from it?

 

[Suddenly]

Not sure I follow. Are you saying Rather/CBS is stupid, evil, incompetent - at least a little bit?

Yes. But then again so am I, you, and everyone else in the world... Except Michael Badnarik. He's pure...

Somehow I can't see that. Sure, one person could be all that, but with so many fingers in this pie, you'd think someone there is not stupid, evil, and incompetent, and would have tried to stop this runaway train.

I don't suggest evil/stupid corrupt was the primary reason this happened, but it factors in. I place the problems on the general breakdown of journalism when what used to be an institution (network news) is a dinosour clawing desperately to retain financial and professional relevance... That there were so many fingers in the pie kind of refutes the premise that one man's politics (Rather's) controlled the whole situation.

Was there truly nobody at CBS who said, "Look, I love Kerry and hate Bush, and would love nothing better than for this to be true, but this thing smells bad and we really should check it out a lot better than we have."?

Heh heh. I have doubts that the whole of CBS share Rather's politics. I'd change the "Kerry and Bush" to them saying: "Look, I'd love for us to break a big story for once like back in the old days and would love nothing better..."

Other than that, yup. Giant screw-up. Remember when ABC filled that truck with gas cans so it would explode and they did a whole big thing on (GM?) trucks being firetraps?

Perhaps Bismark's famous dictum regarding diplomacy and sausages applies to how we get our news as well...

Bob Woodward is going to write a book about this whole episode someday.

Nah. This really isn't that big of a deal in itself. It is just a hell of a valuable bloody shirt for the pro-Bush crowd so a big deal is being made. Not only is it open season on someone seen as a liberal icon, this whole deal is a valuable chance to completely muddy the waters about where these two people were during that era. Not that it really matters all that much, but that is where the action is now and this isn't so much a checkmate as it allows the Bush side to just scramble all the pieces and claim we are really playing checkers.

The issue is dead now. Absent another bizzare incident the Vietnam issue is no longer helpful to Kerry. It is now officially too confusing to be an effective issue as it would take too long to explain a position...

The memo will go in the political hall of fame next to the Willie Horton exhibit, just beyond the "There you go again" cafe (free refills on the jellybeans) and down the hall from the "Paint Al Gore as a shmuck" wing, with free internet access and "Love Story" shown on a loop 24hrs per day...

The "Modern Democrat" wing is empty except for the shrines to James Carville and Bill Clinton...

 

[Suddenly]

I'm having a hard time buying the 'just an innocent oversight' after the virulent attacks on 'partisans' by Rather when the obvious contradictions were brought up.
Not to mention the attempts to 'hush' their own experts, and blame others, AND the continued refusal to reveal the source.

Somebody is gaming something here...question is who benefits the most from it?

Cable news networks? Drudge?

I don't consider it an "innocent oversight" BTW, I just am cynical enough to recognize a dying institution trying to remain a player in an industry that has passed them by. Once it looks bad they either come clean or stonewall. They choose option B and chose the most reasonable sounding tactic, blame the person who the report goes against.

I just think that politics are at best a minor secondary factor as to their conduct.

 

[BPSCG]

I don't consider it an "innocent oversight" BTW, I just am cynical enough to recognize a dying institution trying to remain a player in an industry that has passed them by. Once it looks bad they either come clean or stonewall. They choose option B and chose the most reasonable sounding tactic, blame the person who the report goes against.

And that's what Woodward's book is going to be about. Not the hoax itself, but how CBS News, once the icon of the industry, became an irrelevant laughingstock. If not Woodward, then someone else. Howard Kurtz, maybe. I'll have to ask him on his Washington Post online chat today.

 

[crimresearch]

As a rule, I would be willing to lay the whole thing at the feet of the dinosaur media monopolies, but something else smells here too.


More at 11...

 

[rikzilla]

Except for the number of dead bodies, a completely screwed up mid-east, and the waste of decades of American goodwill abroad, sure...

Then again, I supported the war, and still do support the idea in theory. My problem is with the execution. These people couldn't beat Civ3 on the "Chieftan" level.... The thing about pragmaiticism and realpolitik is that you actually have to be good at it or it just makes a bigger mess...

Well personally I'm just glad that we had a President who actually did just what he said he'd do. Other than that I'd have to agree with you. It could have been done much, much better. But then again, that's hindsight talkin.

-z

 

[Suddenly]

Well personally I'm just glad that we had a President who actually did just what he said he'd do. Other than that I'd have to agree with you. It could have been done much, much better. But then again, that's hindsight talkin.

-z

Yeah, except my hindsight is going back to November 2000....


I can't believe I voted for Harry Browne. I can be such a moron sometimes...

 

[rikzilla]

Yeah, except my hindsight is going back to November 2000....


I can't believe I voted for Harry Browne. I can be such a moron sometimes...

Ahh well....I voted for Nader as a protest vote. Go figger....

 

[BobK]

Suddenly,

Let's see now. You post a link to Slate as evidence of Bush's failure to fulfill his obligation to the Guard.
I point out that in the very 1st paragraph, the writer is showing his bias.

You say I should investigate the tree of links which that article references.
In essence, you want me to do your leg work for you. That could run into 100's of links if you follow the whole tree. Kinda leaves me with the impression you think I'm either very gullible, or stupid, or both.

I post a link. You ignore it entirely.

I then give my opinion about CBS and the memos.

You assert I have "admitted bias". When asked where, you fail to respond.
Is this an attempt to convince others I have done that?

It seems to me, if you unintentionally made that statement you would be more than willing to retract it if you can't prove it. Could this be a character issue?

I put up a scenario where I worked for you, and ask your opinion on it. You fail to respond.

You make some allusion to my "great leader".
You have no location visibly listed, so I ask "Who is the leader in your country?" You fail to respond.

I ask, "How about preponderance of evidence"? You fail to repond.

I ask, "So you accept that manipulation of the public by news organisations is ok?" You fail to respond.

I ask, "Your making a joke here, right?" Hip, hip, hoo-ray! Finally a reponse to something. You reiterated your position in a post to someone else, so I have to believe now you weren't joking.

No acknowledgement that CBS was acting in a Pravda like manner. Touting the party line from a partisan source. Just some obfuscation about degree or something.

Apparently you also have missed the several places where I comment on the allegation and about how neither I nor anyone at the time seemed to care. So your arguments to that point speak more to your inability to follow along than to anything else. You are trying to have an argument on a point that I do not contest.

My whole point is that, like it or not, there is evidence that the obligation was not fulfilled. I decline further getting into the nuances as since even the above simple point is being met with so many unwarranted assumptions about my position and thoughts that further debate is useless.

Here you say in the 1st paragraph that it's an "allegation" and in the 2nd paragraph that it's "evidence".
Which is it? More allegation than evidence or more evidence than allegation?

I personally say there is no evidence. Merely allegations that have been being made for about the last 10 years. With no evidence to back it up.

I don't know you and you don't know me. As far I remember, I don't think we've ever knocked heads before on anything.

Frankly I think your attack on me for questioning your source of evidence has been somewhat over the top and condescending. Most of my post concerned CBS and not what you call evidence.

Do you really think no one should question your source of evidence?

To come back with the unwarranted charge that I have an "admitted bias", I consider a smear.

To totally ignore what I consider to be reasonable questions designed to find out your thought process, smacks of arrogance.

Bob

 

[rockoon]

Uh huh. I think this pretty much sums it up... [/B]

Is that right?

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.

Bush also fullfilled all his requirements and was honorably discharged due to it.

Face it pal, Bush did his duty. Let me repeat that. Bush did his duty.

If you have any criticism of Bush that, you know, has evidence behind it.. I'm all ears.

 

[Suddenly]

Suddenly,

Let's see now. You post a link to Slate as evidence of Bush's failure to fulfill his obligation to the Guard.
I point out that in the very 1st paragraph, the writer is showing his bias.

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.

You say I should investigate the tree of links which that article references.
In essence, you want me to do your leg work for you. That could run into 100's of links if you follow the whole tree. Kinda leaves me with the impression you think I'm either very gullible, or stupid, or both.

Maybe, but if so it has more to do with the above mentioned failure to grasp the limited purpose of the link.

I post a link. You ignore it entirely.

See above.

I then give my opinion about CBS and the memos.

Sure. I read it. You want a medal?

You assert I have "admitted bias". When asked where, you fail to respond.

Most of my not responding has more to do with your inability to format. I didn't care enough to parse through your last response. Your admitted bias is when you rejected the article based on it's conclusions and not any reasoning. In fact, you claimed to have not read it because the political leanings of the author displeased you. This is what I meant.

Is this an attempt to convince others I have done that?

Who? The Virginians? Paranoid much?

It seems to me, if you unintentionally made that statement you would be more than willing to retract it if you can't prove it. Could this be a character issue?

I don't know. Since I meant every word of it, this seems a moot point...

I put up a scenario where I worked for you, and ask your opinion on it. You fail to respond.

Formatting again. Learn to post.

You make some allusion to my "great leader".
You have no location visibly listed, so I ask "Who is the leader in your country?" You fail to respond.

Bob Wise.

I ask, "How about preponderance of evidence"? You fail to repond.

Actually I was wondering where you pulled that from. Plus I'm not sure you understand what it means or what the purpose is. As stated above, the link was to show that evidence existed. I assummed no burden, and why you suggest one is unclear.

I ask, "So you accept that manipulation of the public by news organisations is ok?" You fail to respond.

Yep, formatting again. But since you care about my opinion I'll humor you. My point was that it is better when not at the direction of (directly or indirectly) the government. Since manipulation is unavoidable, and the only question is intent and motive, maybe I should just say "yes."

I ask, "Your making a joke here, right?" Hip, hip, hoo-ray! Finally a reponse to something. You reiterated your position in a post to someone else, so I have to believe now you weren't joking.

Glad to be of service.

No acknowledgement that CBS was acting in a Pravda like manner. Touting the party line from a partisan source. Just some obfuscation about degree or something.

Not hardly. I identified a essential difference between Pravda and CBS that you attempted to refute by somehow claiming that since Pravda was a party organ it wasn't directed by the government. Since this was the only text you managed to get outside a quote I responded to it first. In fact, it was the first thing I saw. Since it was both pedantic and silly, I will admit this claim may have colored my opinion of the rest of your post. I decided it was not worth my time to work around the formatting and there we go...

Here you say in the 1st paragraph that it's an "allegation" and in the 2nd paragraph that it's "evidence".
Which is it? More allegation than evidence or more evidence than allegation?

False dichotomy. At least it would be, but I was talking about two seperate things. I don't really care about the allegations against Bush w/r/t his guard duty. I do, however, believe there is some evidence to support some of these allegations. There is no contradiction here. Only your inability to comprehend the written word.

I personally say there is no evidence. Merely allegations that have been being made for about the last 10 years. With no evidence to back it up.

When you use the word "no" you make a claim that is false. If you say "no good evidence" or "not enough to prove it" then that is a value judgement that I can agree or disagree with but accept that your position is reasonable or at least not plainly wrong. However, saying that there is "no" evidence is a positive claim, one refuted by the link.

I don't know you and you don't know me. As far I remember, I don't think we've ever knocked heads before on anything.

Frankly I think your attack on me for questioning your source of evidence has been somewhat over the top and condescending. Most of my post concerned CBS and not what you call evidence.

Perhaps you should have examined the context of my post before jumping in with irrelevant criticism. You can disparage the source all you want. You can wear a funny hat and call yourself the pope. Whatever. I don't really care. The only over the top that you are getting is the same treatment I give anyone that goes sideways.

I was told there was no evidence. I posted a link that had evidence. You then start with other evidence. Claim I am beating a dead horse and imply that I think this is a big deal. All at best irrelevant, and at worst a bit insulting.

Do you really think no one should question your source of evidence?

More crap. I think nobody should hold me to claims I am not making. How about that?

To come back with the unwarranted charge that I have an "admitted bias", I consider a smear.

That will keep me up nights. Maybe you and shanek can get together and compare notes on what a bastard I am. Maybe some other people will join in. Have fun.

To totally ignore what I consider to be reasonable questions designed to find out your thought process, smacks of arrogance.

Bob

Maybe you consider them reasonable. I found them both poorly formatted and not worth the trouble to answer. So I responded in short.

My thought process was clear. The amount of evidence is greater than zero. That it may be less than your threshhold for proof or that you like other evidence better or whatever is nice, but has nothing to do with what I am saying.

 

[BobK]

Maybe you could tell me precisely where to find information on the proper formating of posts in this forum. Your rather juvenile use of formating as an excuse not to answer, speaks volumes.

I would appreciate it if you would quote precisely the words I used where I "admitted bias". Otherwise your pathetic attempted deflection of my pointing out your smear on me says more about you than about me.

I guess it all boils down to character in the end.

Bob

 

[crimresearch]

"...My thought process was clear. The amount of evidence is greater than zero. That it may be less than your threshhold for proof or that you like other evidence better or whatever is nice, but has nothing to do with what I am saying."

True, including the forged memos, the *amount* of evidence IS greater than zero.

How much of that is *valid* evidence though?

As in, not forged, or based on sophistry, rumors, innuendo, hearsay, or failure to prove a negative?

You know, the kind of 'evidence' that a lawyer could get admitted into a court proceeding?

 

[BobK]

Suddenly,

Given that you still haven't told me who your leader is, I still don't know what country you're from, and therefore have no idea of your native language.

Maybe [Warden's voice] what we have here is a failure to communicate.[/Warden's voice]

I speak the American brand of English.

Here's Merriam Webster's definition of admitted MW

Which definition are you using?

I hope you won't reject reading this post due to poor formating, as no one has yet shown me where the proper formating rules reside.

Bob

 

[zenith-nadir]

I'm having a hard time buying the 'just an innocent oversight' after the virulent attacks on 'partisans' by Rather when the obvious contradictions were brought up.
Not to mention the attempts to 'hush' their own experts, and blame others, AND the continued refusal to reveal the source.

Somebody is gaming something here...question is who benefits the most from it?

These guys....

CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart - USA Today

WASHINGTON — CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.

 

[rikzilla]

These guys....

CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart - USA Today

The White House said CBS' contact with Lockhart was inappropriate. "The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry's campaign to attack the president is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director.

 

[Suddenly]

Maybe you could tell me precisely where to find information on the proper formating of posts in this forum. Your rather juvenile use of formating as an excuse not to answer, speaks volumes.

Your inability to figure out the method of

1) Find a correctly formatted post
2) See how that post is formatted by hitting the "quote" button and reading it.
3) Apply new knowledge

Speaks a few volumes in itself.

It is hardly juvinile. My time is not infinite and as a rule I am less likely to respond to something when it takes a few extra steps to do so. Welcome to the real world.

I would appreciate it if you would quote precisely the words I used where I "admitted bias". Otherwise your pathetic attempted deflection of my pointing out your smear on me says more about you than about me.

I thought I explained that. Is this where you just make random demands so that you can effectively avoid the issue? "Show me where I say I am biased in so many words or else you are wrong and I am right and hahahahaha I feel better now that some random arrogant jerk was wrong about me and I am really as pure as I think I am!!!" That sort of thing? Yawn.

 

[Suddenly]

True, including the forged memos, the *amount* of evidence IS greater than zero.

Even without it is greater than zero. You have correctly identified the point I have been trying to make. You win a "good job!!"

How much of that is *valid* evidence though?

As in, not forged, or based on sophistry, rumors, innuendo, hearsay, or failure to prove a negative?

You know, the kind of 'evidence' that a lawyer could get admitted into a court proceeding?

Some of it could get in. Depends on the actual claim being tried, be it "Bush is a slacker" or "absent his connections if Bush acted this way he'd be screwed" or "Bush is actually guilty of desertion and has been on the run since the 70's"

I could convict on the first, establish probable cause on the second, and be laughed out of court on the third. This is just my impression from what I have seen. I would hesitiate to prosecute even the first without an investigation and so forth, and since I really don't have the time (or care that much) I decline to make any specific claims about this sort of thing...

These complications that we outline above explain the limited scope for which the link was offered. Once I realized that for the most part this discussion (in the larger 2398 threads on the topic sense) turned mostly on the assumptions made as to quality and purpose of the evidence, I really threw up my hands and have been trying to limit myself to what we can comfortably conclude from the memos. This is a more or less conclusive list:

1) The memos are not genuine

Any claims that 1) somehow makes true that no evidence exists for the claims stated in the memos, or that this conclusively rebutts any of that evidence is the point I object to. There is evidence.

 

[Suddenly]

Suddenly,

Given that you still haven't told me who your leader is, I still don't know what country you're from, and therefore have no idea of your native language.

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

Which definition are you using?

The same one I used when I explained two responses ago wht I stand by my remark. Yet you keep asking the same question. Are you going to break into my house and boil my bunny next? I don't have a bunny, and my wife's cats are vicious towards strangers, so be careful...

I hope you won't reject reading this post due to poor formating, as no one has yet shown me where the proper formating rules reside.

Bob

The proper formatting rules according to me are:

1) Don't put your response inside the "quote" tabs as it makes the reply function useless.

2) See #1.

I said I read your response. I even responded to it in short. I thought a detailed response was not worth my while. I'm sorry if that conflicts with your self image or makes you doubt your self worth so that you keep bringing it up.