From: Carbon on 14 Dec 2009 17:00
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:24:59 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>> "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>> On Dec 12, 10:50 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:43:53 -0800, Ken Meltzer wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 12, 6:36 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:11:01 +0000, assimilate wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you know what his family actually feels about all of this?
>>>>> How could they not?
>>>> "Is knowledge knowable?" "If not, how do we know this?" -Woody
>>> Ok. At the same time, if someone walked up to you and smacked you in
>>> the head with a baseball bat, I think imagining that you might be
>>> dizzy, disoriented, have a headache, etc., would be reasonable.
>> Right. And if someone came to the emergency room presenting those
>> symptoms and sporting an indentation in his head in the shape of a
>> baseball bat, it would be reasonable to assume that he had been hit
>> over the head with a bat, even if you didn't personally witness the
>> incident. Best, Ken
> You guys are going to make Bakers head explode.
I don't see that this is so incompatible with what Alan was saying. We
can't say specifically how one would feel in a given situation, but
sometimes we can make a reasonable guess.
From: Chris Bellomy on 14 Dec 2009 17:44
dene wrote, On 12/14/09 4:26 PM:
> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>> dene wrote, On 12/14/09 3:04 PM:
>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>>>> dene wrote, On 12/14/09 2:24 PM:
>>>>> If you are going to be consistent with your manslaughter rationale,
>>>>> better with Truman's decision to nuke Japan.
>>>> Were we at peace then?
>>> We had the nation surrounded. We could have sued for peace instead of
>>> unconditional surrender.
>> So, we weren't at peace?
> We could have been had we not insisted on unconditional surrender.
After all that had happened, there was no way the American
public was going to accept anything less. That wasn't a
political decision the President made, that was the will
of the people.
So, honestly, I think Truman's decision was a matter of
which people's lives to lose -- a horrible decision to have
to make, but again, imagine the hue and cry had he chosen
to invade and *not* use that incredible new technology we
had invented. It would have gotten *very* ugly at home.
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Dec 2009 18:30
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:49:48 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc>
>Tiger Woods cheated on his wife in myriad ways.
>George W. Bush launched a war on false pretenses.
>Who's the real villain? Why?
And Obama campaigned on changing George W. Bush's policies.
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
From: Carbon on 14 Dec 2009 19:21
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:05:43 -0600, bknight wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:41:49 -0800 (PST), dsc-ky
> <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote:
>>On Dec 14, 4:23 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>>> <assimil...(a)borg.org> wrote in message
>>>> On 13-Dec-2009, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Don't you get tired of being an argumentative prig?
>>>>> How does that make Alan different from any of the rest of us?
>>>> I'm afraid Carbon is correct, we all wear that shoe size!
>>> Most argue here by stating a view and supporting it. Baker argues by
>>> knitpicking a stated view and saying nothing in return.
>>If you pay attention, he often says he doesn't know enough to have an
>>opinion. Don't you believe him? :)
> More people should adopt that attitude, but they aren't smart enough
> to know what they don't know.
That's my take. Certainty is rare. For everything else you need to
provide some sort of rational explanation for the evidence.
From: Carbon on 14 Dec 2009 19:23
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:49:48 -0600, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> dene wrote, On 12/14/09 12:45 PM:
>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>>> assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/14/09 11:05 AM:
>>>> On 14-Dec-2009, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>>>> More people should adopt that attitude, but they aren't smart enough
>>>>> to know what they don't know.
>>>> opinions are not knowledge
>>> Opinions without knowledge are both utterly pointless and
>>> excruciatingly common on Usenet.
>> In the case of Tiger Woods, there is plenty of knowledge to base an
>> opinion on.
> Tiger Woods cheated on his wife in myriad ways.
> George W. Bush launched a war on false pretenses.
> Who's the real villain? Why?
Wubya, because of the harm. He killed 5000 American troops, many times
more Iraqis, blowing hundreds of billions in the process. Screwing a
bunch of groupies doesn't compare.