<p>The reincarnation of Norm Crosby?</p>
<p>is norm mortified?</p>
<p>Apparently not! I had thought he was. This is a-propos, anyway. Enjoy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism</a></p>
<p>Gotta love cgm’s energy – and her sincerity.</p>
<p>Imperfectly presented but soulful thought is always more compelling than glib tripe. Perhaps if she was reasoned with instead of ridiculed, these exchanges might conclude to everyone’s satisfaction.</p>
<p>Sincerity and energy are no substitute for content.</p>
<p>Right, I failed to add - even if she is often wrong – at least she has the courage of her convictions. I often don’t.</p>
<p>So it’s good to have the courage of conviction even if you’re wrong? So–why all the Bush-bashing? Lie? Courage of conviction though perhaps wrong? Is there a difference?</p>
<p>driver,</p>
<p>By the way, if by “content” you mean mastery of the facts, you must admit that two people can know the same facts and yet reach different conclusions, based on their interpretation of those facts.</p>
<p>I certainly do mean that, leanid, which is why I object so emphatically to the “Bush lied” meme.</p>
<p>What is “right” and what is “wrong”? A conviction can be wrong if it does not have a full picture of what is being examined (ie - all the facts), but are all facts in a situation relevant, or are they more often part of a “group of facts” (just more filler) that can perusade towards some end. Perhaps, it is more important to recognize those groups of facts and their persuasion (than to be able to cite every single, individual fact, ad nauseum), in order to see the bigger picture.</p>
<p>I think one needs a combination of, a sound grasp of the “fact groups”, as it were, with, one’s heart and soul applied to the interpretation of them, to reach what is “right” for the individual.</p>
<p>As has been said (and do not ask me who “has been” was, lol): Goodness without knowledge is weak, yet knowledge without goodness is dangerous.</p>
<p>“I certainly do mean that, leanid, which is why I object so emphatically to the “Bush lied” meme.”</p>
<p>That is exactly it! cgm was presented with facts which she interpreted one way, while you (?) were presented with the same (I am guessing) facts which you interpreted another way. Make sense?</p>
<p>The thread jumped right to the massage business, ignoring some fairly significant political statements by two world leaders, albeit Bush’s were made with cgm-type grammar. (Question: Why does cgm’s grammar bother right-leaning posters when their beloved president seems to be cut from the same cloth? Glass houses indeed.)</p>
<p>If the thread turned sophomoric, certainly throwing toys at cgm didn’t lift it. The original post contained an amazing view into the current relationship between Blair and Bush, Blair’s position on the world stage–as well as a good look into Bush’s view on the current crisis in Lebanon. That’s what I thought was interesting but you all carry on with your ‘Bush bashing’ wobblies.</p>
<p>
Oh yes, Cheers, OP, you gave an amazing view, as always.</p>
<p>I thought about that. Changed to reflect intent.</p>
<p>Appreciate the kindness driver.</p>
<p>You’re welcome, and deserve no less.</p>
<p>:) You’re right about that. (Smiley added for your benefit).</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Nice job spelling–thought you’d want to know (not to drag this thread, unlike others, into, as you say, sophomoric toy-throwing) </p>
<p>I think I have a few of yours, in case you want them back ;)</p>
<p>driver,
thanks for the shout-out on TNC.</p>
<p>No, no! You keep those! I’m thrilled I was once able to counter-correct the mighty FS! Once! That won’t happen again will it? I’d better hang on to past glories.</p>
<p>Are you offering to be my personal spell checker? I do need one but what a waste of good writing time. Honestly, I’d rather have a comment on the political implications of the transcript at the top.</p>
<p>But the transcript posted by the amazing toy-throwing OP was so silly! Why would the mighty FS deign to comment on such a transparent crock? Not that she shouldn’t, if she feels so inclined. But she’s busy, and I hope she’ll have time for a little fun in NYC this summer.</p>
<p>Pile this on with Bush’s veto even though last time I heard 70% of the population is for stem cell research…</p>
<p>and Germany hates Bush already anyways. From what I remember from the last election, there was a mock poll in Germany where 80 something percent of the population voted against Bush; I wonder what it would be now. Even the United States has lost faith in him…</p>