DB wrote...
>>if you're just going to ape the sentiments and rhetoric >>of the Fox Network and Matt Drudge and the Spectator, >>then all you're adding to the world is more noise, of >>which there is plenty already.
That's fair enough (and pretty accurate 75% of the way) my train of thought is reasonably focused, but in this forum I somehow fuzz the differences between written and verbal communication. When you speak to a friend you're probably aware of their verbal shorthands - but when you write verbal shorthands that can leave some folk a little confused.
On the subject of arguing our cases, didn't somebody once describe the art of arguing politics "the defense of the indefensible"? Even though you and I are as diametrically opposed as they come, in the broader brush of history we'll be filed next to the guys who straightened the deckchairs on the Titanic. Looking back over the last couple of postings, I thought I was getting a touch more focused in my expositions? For every statement that Scott made, I had given a reasonably `to the point` answer that he could have easily rebutted.
as ever, I'm still
Richard
PS - Have you read Matt Drudge's book? It makes my ramblings seem clear and sensible =o)
getting it more one-tracked
R
richard
(view)
DB wrote...
>>if you're just going to ape the sentiments and rhetoric >>of the Fox Network and Matt Drudge and the Spectator, >>then all you're adding to the world is more noise, of >>which there is plenty already.
That's fair enough (and pretty accurate 75% of the way) my train of thought is reasonably focused, but in this forum I somehow fuzz the differences between written and verbal communication. When you speak to a friend you're probably aware of their verbal shorthands - but when you write verbal shorthands that can leave some folk a little confused.
On the subject of arguing our cases, didn't somebody once describe the art of arguing politics "the defense of the indefensible"? Even though you and I are as diametrically opposed as they come, in the broader brush of history we'll be filed next to the guys who straightened the deckchairs on the Titanic. Looking back over the last couple of postings, I thought I was getting a touch more focused in my expositions? For every statement that Scott made, I had given a reasonably `to the point` answer that he could have easily rebutted.
as ever, I'm still
Richard
PS - Have you read Matt Drudge's book? It makes my ramblings seem clear and sensible =o)
>>if you're just going to ape the sentiments and rhetoric >>of the Fox Network and Matt Drudge and the Spectator, >>then all you're adding to the world is more noise, of >>which there is plenty already.
That's fair enough (and pretty accurate 75% of the way) my train of thought is reasonably focused, but in this forum I somehow fuzz the differences between written and verbal communication. When you speak to a friend you're probably aware of their verbal shorthands - but when you write verbal shorthands that can leave some folk a little confused.
On the subject of arguing our cases, didn't somebody once describe the art of arguing politics "the defense of the indefensible"? Even though you and I are as diametrically opposed as they come, in the broader brush of history we'll be filed next to the guys who straightened the deckchairs on the Titanic. Looking back over the last couple of postings, I thought I was getting a touch more focused in my expositions? For every statement that Scott made, I had given a reasonably `to the point` answer that he could have easily rebutted.
as ever, I'm still
Richard
PS - Have you read Matt Drudge's book? It makes my ramblings seem clear and sensible =o)
