Attacking McCain? He's Dead

[rogue06]

I said nothing about McCain's knowledge. However, I did not see a place where anything said McCain required this to be done, knew of it before hand, or approved it. Did I miss that somewhere?

Yup, you're right. Kramer took it upon himself to do this all on his own.

[carpedm9587]

Yup, you're right. Kramer took it upon himself to do this all on his own.

Actually - I didn't say that either.

You guys really like to put words in a person's mouth. Again - for those struggling to keep up (and yes, that's snarky): "X did not Y" and and "It is not shown that X did Y" are not equivalent statements. I said the latter - I did not say the former.

So - for now - we don't know. Or - at least - I don't know. You folks are, of course, free to continue to fill in the gap with speculation that conforms to your pre-existing political views. It's not like it's the first time...

[Sparko]

Actually - I didn't say that either.

You guys really like to put words in a person's mouth. Again - for those struggling to keep up (and yes, that's snarky): "X did not Y" and and "It is not shown that X did Y" are not equivalent statements. I said the latter - I did not say the former.

So - for now - we don't know. Or - at least - I don't know. You folks are, of course, free to continue to fill in the gap with speculation that conforms to your pre-existing political views. It's not like it's the first time...

So who do you think told Kramer to do it then?

Either you think Kramer did it himself, or someone else told him to. Why do you keep trying so hard to keep from just taking a stance? You clearly implied you thought Kramer could have done it himself. Yet then you back away and say you didn't say that.

[carpedm9587]

So who do you think told Kramer to do it then?

I have no idea who - or even IF he was told. I have not found any information that speaks to that. So any answer I make would be pure speculation - and I prefer not to speculate.

Either you think Kramer did it himself, or someone else told him to.

And then of course there's always the one that gets left out: "I don't know."

Why do you keep trying so hard to keep from just taking a stance?

I take a stance when I have evidence to justify the stance. When I don't, I say "I don't know."

You clearly implied you thought Kramer could have done it himself.

Yes - he could have done it himself. I don't need to imply it - it is an obvious possibility. He also could have been told to do it. That is also an obvious possibility. If the latter, he could have been told to do it by several different people. That is also an obvious possibility. Which is it? I don't know.

Yet then you back away and say you didn't say that.

I have never said I didn't say "I don't know." I have never denied any of the possibilities. I have said pretty much the same thing from the outset: can you show me the evidence that leads to conclusion X. Nobody has. So I still don't know.

It's not that difficult, folks. Speculating, in my experience, is an exercise in filling in gaps in knowledge with the speculator's pre-existing opinion. Conservatives will decide "McCain told him." Liberals will decide "Kramer did it on his own." Everyone will insist they have it right - and no one will be able to provide a shred of evidence to support the claim.

When you have evidence, let me know and I'll look at it. Until then, I'll respond "I don't know" because I actually don't know.

Some of you should try it sometime. You might find that you end up slightly less polarized and locked into your mindset because you aren't regularly engaging in so much political self-stimulation.

[Mountain Man]

Yup, you're right. Kramer took it upon himself to do this all on his own.

Right. We're supposed to believe that McCain ordered Kramer to retrieve the dossier and bring it back to Washington and then just let him do his own thing after that.

[carpedm9587]

Right. We're supposed to believe that McCain ordered Kramer to retrieve the dossier and bring it back to Washington and then just let him do his own thing after that.

None of which I said or suggested.

[Sparko]

None of which I said or suggested.

Bull.

So I'm reading all of this to say Kramer distributed the document - not McCain. Am I missing something?

[carpedm9587]

Bull.

Yes - the article seems to say it was Kramer distributed the document. The earlier claim was that McCain did it. And I asked if I missed anything.

The rest you added - which is what you pretty regularly do. You seem chronically incapable of simply staying with what a person actually says - and add reams of inference to it and then shoot them all down and declare victory. It's an amazing thing to watch.

If it's any consolation - you aren't alone. It appears to be a common theme here, and apparently is a perfectly acceptable way of engaging - all the while screaming "strawman."

I don't use these often - but...

[Sparko]

Yes - the article seems to say it was Kramer distributed the document. The earlier claim was that McCain did it. And I asked if I missed anything.

The rest you added - which is what you pretty regularly do. You seem chronically incapable of simply staying with what a person actually says - and add reams of inference to it and then shoot them all down and declare victory. It's an amazing thing to watch.

If it's any consolation - you aren't alone. It appears to be a common theme here, and apparently is a perfectly acceptable way of engaging - all the while screaming "strawman."

I don't use these often - but...

I added nothing Carp. I just said "Bull" and posted your own words. Ironic that you are accusing me of adding reams of inference to your words considering that huh?

[tabibito]

The rest you added - which is what you pretty regularly do. You seem chronically incapable of simply staying with what a person actually says - and add reams of inference to it and then shoot them all down and declare victory. It's an amazing thing to watch.

If it's any consolation - you aren't alone. It appears to be a common theme here, and apparently is a perfectly acceptable way of engaging - all the while screaming "strawman."

I don't use these often - but...

You - (pretty much throughout the post) substitute "people often"
Here - the process is common enough anywhere.

[carpedm9587]

I added nothing Carp. I just said "Bull" and posted your own words. Ironic that you are accusing me of adding reams of inference to your words considering that huh?

Actually - you have. You added meaning I did not put there. As the post said, "the article says that Kramer distributed the document - not McCain." In other words - the article does not say McCain distributed the document, it says Kramer did. Therefore, it does not substantiate the accusation made that McCain distributed the document. I have seen nothing (so far) to substantiate the claim "McCain distributed the document." And it concluded with "did I miss something?" to provide people with an opportunity to correct me if I had missed something. I also followed up with several clarifying posts in response to comments that clearly misunderstood my post.

But as usual with you, your interpretation rules! What someone else actually meant and was saying is meaningless, even when it is supported by the actual post. You are the "king of what is going on in someone else's mind." I have pretty much come to expect it - and I have pretty much come to realize you will probably NEVER acknowledge misunderstanding someone else's post - certainly not if that someone is me.

So carry on, Sparko. It's pretty much same old same old with you. As CP said, it gets old. But hey - it's what you do.

[carpedm9587]

You - (pretty much throughout the post) substitute "people often"
Here - the process is common enough anywhere.

I actually said pretty much what I meant, Tab. But thanks.

[Sparko]

Actually - you have. You added meaning I did not put there. As the post said, "the article says that Kramer distributed the document - not McCain." In other words - the article does not say McCain distributed the document, it says Kramer did. Therefore, it does not substantiate the accusation made that McCain distributed the document. I have seen nothing (so far) to substantiate the claim "McCain distributed the document." And it concluded with "did I miss something?" to provide people with an opportunity to correct me if I had missed something. I also followed up with several clarifying posts in response to comments that clearly misunderstood my post.

But as usual with you, your interpretation rules! What someone else actually meant and was saying is meaningless, even when it is supported by the actual post. You are the "king of what is going on in someone else's mind." I have pretty much come to expect it - and I have pretty much come to realize you will probably NEVER acknowledge misunderstanding someone else's post - certainly not if that someone is me.

So carry on, Sparko. It's pretty much same old same old with you. As CP said, it gets old. But hey - it's what you do.

So you are doing exactly what you just accused me of doing and it's fine? How un-selfaware ARE you Carp?

[carpedm9587]

Duplicate...

[carpedm9587]

So you are doing exactly what you just accused me of doing and it's fine? How un-selfaware ARE you Carp?

What?

Sparko - you are explicitly accusing me of saying/meaning something I did not say/mean - and insisting your interpretation is correct. I'm not reading your mind - it's what you have just said.

What is WITH you?