Bush supporters' aftermath thread

There are few of us so humble that when they say, "I find little here that is interesting", they do not intend it to mean "there is little here that is interesting".

One exception might occur when the individual admits that they might be divorced from reality, as on a psychiatrist's couch. That is, when the individual has lost confidence in his/her ability to perceive reality, and trust others' perceptions more than their own.

Another exception is when an individual admits he is dealing with a subject that he knows so little about that he is more than willing to trust others' judgments on the subject. For instance, a patient looking at his own X-rays might say, "Well I didn't see anything, but the doctor said he saw a little grey shading in lower right hand corner which was significant."

Neither one of these exceptions apply here.

I assume you have not lost confidence in your ability to perceive reality, and you are not willing to say that you know so little about political writing that you are willing to trust the judgment of almost anyone versed in the subject more than your own.

Therefore, in this case, when you say "I am far more likely to find verifiable useful information on a conservative site....", it is exactly equivalent to nimh's reporting "Fox blisfully declaring that one is 'far more likely to find verifiable useful information on a conservative site....' ".

0 Replies

Only in your world, KW.

In my world, to say one is frightened to death in that place has a universal connotation.

To say I was frightened to death in that place puts it purely in personal terms and refers to nobody else.

0 Replies

Since a person generally gets frightened by a specific incident, you are describing your reaction to a specific thing which happened to you. I will allow that it is conceivable another might have a different reaction to a specific incident.

In the comment on blogs, though, you were being analytical.

I am very sorry, but when speaking analytically, "I find little here that is interesting" is essentially synonymous with "you will find little here that is interesting", except in the two exception cases listed above.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Foxfyre - please cut nimh some slack. Keep in mind the basic rule of mathematical modelling (the robustness of a model is proportional to its predictive value) and consider that not only did nimh's model get the US election wrong (as previously posted by Timber) but it also got the EU constitutional referenda wrong.

Models which reliably predict the opposite of the observed result have their uses, too!

I'm glad that you've all gotten the "nimh's wrong inferences" bit out of your system. I know you must have been itching to say something of the sort and gotten increasingly frustrated over the years about not actually having been able to find any such wrong inferences. Mr. Green

Still, not to want to spoil your pleasure, but ehm, if I may ask, how did I actually get the US election and EU constitutional referenda wrong?

On the European Constitution, specifically, since you bring it up HofT, can you remind me when I ever predicted the French and Dutch would vote in favour of it? Cause I sure cant remember that I did.

Actually, I dont think I ever made any prediction on the French referendum. And the only one I ever made on the Dutch one was:

Quote:

I do predict the numbers will shift quickly towards approval once the campaign for the constitution starts up, with both all three right-wing government parties and two of the three leftwing opposition parties putting themselves on the line for it. But there's always the off-chance that this is exactly what will trigger a Fortuyn-type protest against "the establishment" and its regentesque "old politics".

Sounds like exactly what happened, to me.

As for the US election, I listed my successive predictions in this post here, which HoT must have overlooked. As the elections drew nearer I got to have things closer than they turned out to be, it's true; but I dont see how I was much surprised by Bush's victory itself there, all in all - alas.

I'm guessing Timber and HofT mistook me for PDiddie. It wasnt me who was confidently doing the rounds predicting a Kerry victory - I had my own Kerry-bashing thread. But I know - us liberals all look the same. Hard to keep track and all that.

See - I'll let you folks in on a little secret. It's possible to separate personal preference from (more) objective analysis. Like: I would like this to happen or be true, but if I step away from my personal political passion for a moment, I can see that realistically, this is more likely.

Its not always as much fun as the glee-and-scorn stuff, true. But still, it comes warmly recommended!

0 Replies

NIMH -

"I know you must have been itching to say something of the sort and gotten increasingly frustrated over the years about not actually having been able to find any such wrong inferences. "

LOL - this attempt at psychiatric telepathy speaks volumes about your problems NIMH; nobody except you has ever previously noted any hesitation on my part to express a view <G>

0 Replies

True, I too have not observed any hesitation on your part to express a view - whatever view, really.

Then again, you may notice the Mr. Green

next to that statement there. It translates roughly as "<-- JOKE".

I'll make sure to transcribe it as such for you next time ;-)

So, to get back to the view you just expressed with apparent confidence - how did I get the EU constitutional referenda wrong?

0 Replies

NIMH - since you obligingly provided your own quote on the subject, may I repost it here:
__________________________________________

"I do predict the numbers will shift quickly towards approval once the campaign for the constitution starts up.."
__________________________________________

Tout commentaire est superflu!

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

"I do predict the numbers will shift quickly towards approval once the campaign for the constitution starts up.."
__________________________________________

Tout commentaire est superflu!

Ehmm .. the numbers in Holland did shift towards approval when the campaign for the constitution started up.

But a backlash quickly followed - as I had conceived as a possibility in the part of my prediction you so neatly (yet transparently) snipped out:

Quote:

But there's always the off-chance that this is exactly what will trigger a Fortuyn-type protest against "the establishment" and its regentesque "old politics".

So that makes me, what, right on both counts?

Your turn.

0 Replies

NIMH - perhaps you don't understand French; my apologies for not providing a translation for
"tout commentaire est superflu". It means
"any commentary would be superfluous"

I wish you a good day Smile

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

I am very sorry, but when speaking analytically, "I find little here that is interesting" is essentially synonymous with "you will find little here that is interesting", except in the two exception cases listed above.

Again only in your world KW.

The two terms in question are "I find..." and "One finds...."

If you say "I find...." and "One finds...." are synonymous, I simply disagree. Thus, even based on our disagreement alone, your statement is fallacious on the face of it.

0 Replies

You have the strangest way of saying "Oh yeah, true - sorry about that", HofT.

Nevertheless, oui - je vous souhaite une bonne journee.

0 Replies

Here we go again.

Foxfyre, if your observations on the blogs were offered up as a personal emotional journey through the blogs, which purpose was to list what was happening emotionally to you as you read the websites, then there might be a real difference between "I find little here that is interesting", and "you will find little here that is interesting".

But they weren't. Your post was an analysis, not a personal journey. It was your considered judgment about a subject which you feel qualified to write about-political writing.

As such, there is no real difference, when writing an analysis, between "I find", "you will find", or "to be found here".

Essentially, your post was a review of the content of the liberal blogs versus the conservative blogs. Much like a newspaper might have a review of a book, movie, record, whatever.

When a book reviewer writes that "I found little of interest here" about an author's book, are you seriously trying to maintain that what he really is saying is, "Hey man, I didn't find anything interesting here but then, I am only one person and do not intend that judgment to possibly mean that any person should think that applies to anyone but myself, there is surely just as great a possibility that YOU will find something interesting here as that you will not"?

Because if you are, that is ridiculous.

What the reviewer is clearly saying is "There is little of interest in this book". He is making a subjective judgment. I am sure the reviewer will allow that subjective judgments may be differed from, there not being any objective way to prove books good or bad, but these judgments must be made and he/she is making it.

A book, movie or record review is NOT just a log of a personal emotional journey while reading, watching or hearing the object of the review. The judgments are meant to be taken as conclusions. When the reviewer says, "I find little of interest here", it is very much the equivalent of "You will find little of interest here" and "there is little of interest to be found here".

The same applies to your post, which was a review of the content of liberal and conservative blogs.

Foxfyre, you made the judgments. Now own up and defend them.

0 Replies

Again only in your world KW.

You can strain and stretch this to the ends of the earth, and the fact will remain that a personal opinion can be expressed as a personal opinion without implication that it applies to everybody. And to use such personal opinion erroneously--even change the precise words used so they can be made to look more onerous--to give a backhanded slap at another member (or anybody) is disingenous if not downright dishonest.

I wasn't writing a book report or offering any other kind of expert opinion. I was making a personal observation. I don't expect you to share my take on it, but I do expect that I be allowed my personal observation that was pertinent to the topic being discussed. I extend that courtesy to others.

Why are you so wound up about this? Are you one of those who do find those Bush or right wing-bashing sites fascinating and I hit a nerve? Can you explain why so many on the left are unable to have a discussion about anything without making it a personal vendetta against anybody who disagrees with them?

I'm humoring you here. How about you answer my questions? Maybe it would help me understand where you and Nimh are coming from.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you one of those who do find those Bush or right wing-bashing sites fascinating and I hit a nerve? Can you explain why so many on the left are unable to have a discussion about anything without making it a personal vendetta against anybody who disagrees with them?

Of course, it is only your opinion that this phenomenon is limited to the left, and you don't mean to say this opinion ought to be shared by anybody else. Correct?

0 Replies

Well, Thomas, in the interest of precision, where did I say it was my opinion that the phenomenon was limited to the left? And a question always gives the questionee an out.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You can strain and stretch this to the ends of the earth, and the fact will remain that a personal opinion can be expressed as a personal opinion without implication that it applies to everybody.

Like I said, if this was meant as Foxfyre's personal journey through liberal and conservative blogs, you might have a point.

It wasn't. You made a judgement on the relative content of liberal vs conservative blogs.

It makes no real difference if the judgment was written in the "I find", "you will find" or "to be found here is..." forms.

Foxfyre wrote:

And to use such personal opinion erroneously--even change the precise words used so they can be made to look more onerous--to give a backhanded slap at another member (or anybody) is disingenous if not downright dishonest.

Oh, please. Nimh took your words "I find" and interpreted as meaning "you will find". The meaning is unchanged.

Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't writing a book report or offering any other kind of expert opinion.

You essentially were posting a review. Nothing wrong with that, but please quite shilly-shallying around and defend it.

Foxfyre wrote:

I was making a personal observation. I don't expect you to share my take on it....

You were offering a subjective judment on the quality of liberal vs conservative blogs, which you have every right to do. What you don't have the right to do is to back off that judgment by claiming that you don't need to defend it because you never meant it to apply to anyone else.

You made a judgment. It matters not is it was offered as "I find", "you will find" or "it will be found that", or if someone changed the form when referring to your statement. The judgment remains the same in either form.

0 Replies

This is a really, really interesting discussion .....

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/indifferent.gif

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/sleep.gif

0 Replies

I agree Tico, and I'm as tired of it as I'm sure most rational people are tired of it. KW is insistent upon putting words in my mouth that I neither said nor intended and I'll just declare him to be out of line, off base, out of synch, etc. etc. etc. at this point, and will not respond further on the subject.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

KW is insistent upon putting words in my mouth that I neither said nor intended

You must be kidding. You made a judgment and and now you're backing off it.

0 Replies

She's only backing away from your bizarre non-issue, as, it seems, everyone else has.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know