Letters to the Editor
-
xrandadu Hutman
"I didn't ignore anything. The point remains: If a person makes 5 true statements, then 2 false statements, those 5 true statements don't magically make the 2 false statements less false. Nor is there any dispute about them. The focus is on the 2 statements that are false. I have no obligation to discuss the other 5 statements because I am not contending that every part of the story was a lie, only that some parts were. The parts of the story that are true are irrelevant."
Actually, if you note, I called you on the "largely" which implies mostly or a majority. So by your own example, if a person makes 5 true statements, then two false ones, all about the very same singular event, then it isn't "largely" or mostly false; it's actually mostly true. So if you want to acknowledge that you overstepped on the "largely", which is what I took you to account for as dishonest, then we're not so bad on this.
I also haven't disputed you on the two items as "false", just your characterization of them as necessarily "lies". The one does not automatically lead to the other.
"The parts of the story that are true are irrelevant."
They're not irrelevant if you state or imply that she is mostly lying or repeatedly lying. Just like Tiger's victories are not irrelevant if I say he is a "loser", there being a difference between losing and being a loser, just as their is a difference between lying and being a liar, even if one gives you your reading.
" there are accounts of the story all over the media now, and they all provide the full context"
actually, they don't, as my quote of today's media report shows where they cite her saying she remembers being told of the potential of fire as proof she's offered the story of actual fire before. Or how they say Sinbad disputes her without noting he also disputes himself, since he called it tense in contemporaneous interviews. Hardly the full context
-
Hillary has lied throughout about her experience.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has been accused in recent days of padding her foreign policy resume while First Lady, admitted today that she may have exaggerated about an encounter she said she had with al-Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden in 1998.
In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Clinton told host Tim Russert, "I wrestled bin Laden in his cave in 1998 and had him pinned to the ground before the bastard got away."
But a review of Sen. Clinton's official White House schedule from that period revealed that the then-First Lady was nowhere in the vicinity of Mr. bin Laden on that day, but was instead greeting a group of honor roll students at Disney World in Orlando.
"I may have misspoke about what went on that particular day," Sen. Clinton said today. "But it was a very busy time for me, what with having that knife-fight with Kim Jong-Il and all."
Reporters peppered Sen. Clinton's new press spokesman with questions about another purported exploit of hers, in which the senator claimed that she and a ragtag team of blue-collar drillers deflected an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth.
"Everything Hillary Clinton says is true," said her new spokesman, the author James Frey.
Andy Borowitz the comedian
-
see, and then like, we wrote a whole thing that wasn't true
and then pretended Hillary really said it. And it was sooooo funnnnny. I mean, like, ya know? Cuz like, there's this whole thing going on now where people like you know say she maybe like I don't know lied or maybe didn't. I don't really understand it or anything plus it isn't like you know on anybody's myspace or facebook yet but anyway the pretend thing was really funny. Plus my god did you see what she was wearing? I mean, like, no, I didn't, cuz you know, she didn't like flickr it or anything but I heard for Tanya who heard from Heather who heard from Tamika that it was like oh my god how could she wear that thing unless it was like for her own funeral and cuz like she was already dead and some lameo picked it out for her? I know! Me too!
-
@Billcap
billcap: "Actually, if you note, I called you on the "largely" which implies mostly or a majority."
Ah, so you admit you're just being tediously literal.
billcap: "I also haven't disputed you on the two items as "false", just your characterization of them as necessarily "lies". The one does not automatically lead to the other."
So you admit they were false. Well that's something. Considering Clinton's obvious motives here, and considering the evasive way her campaign is handling this whole thing (saying she was "sleep deprived" and that she only "misspoke" that one time when it turns out this is part of a repeated pattern), my conclusion seems uncontroversial.
billcap: "They're not irrelevant if you state or imply that she is mostly lying or repeatedly lying."
At no point have I tried to say that every single sentence was a lie, just the ones in question.
billcap: "actually, [media accounts] don't [provide context], as my quote of today's media report shows where they cite her saying she remembers being told of the potential of fire as proof she's offered the story of actual fire before."
Actually, the media accounts are very thorough.
billcap: "Or how they say Sinbad disputes her without noting he also disputes himself, since he called it tense in contemporaneous interviews. Hardly the full context"
Sinbad called what tense? The greeting ceremony? Or the plane flight? Because we're not talking about whether the plane flight was tense. Sinbad is clear about where he differs with the account.
-
xrandadu Hutman
"so you admit you're just being tediously literal"
Well, guess I'll admit that so long as you admit to the irony (I believe we're now up to at least two) of you complaining about somebody's exaggeration while you exaggerate what they exaggerated about. Or can Hillary now just say you're being "tediously literal"? I know, it's unreasonable of me to hold people to words meaning what they actually say. Suppose it's the English teacher in me.
"So you admit they were false. Well that's something"
Well, it is something, just not something new. Perhaps you're become so accustomed to simply skimming over what people write since the words don't seem to matter much. If you go back an read my actual posts, though, you'll see that I said they were false some time ago, and more than once. If that's what you were waiting for you could have gone ahead and ordered your pizza a day or two ago.
"Considering Clinton's obvious motives here, and considering the evasive way her campaign is handling this whole thing (saying she was "sleep deprived" and that she only "misspoke" that one time when it turns out this is part of a repeated pattern), my conclusion seems uncontroversial."
And here's a neat trick: "Considering Xrandadu's motives here (scoring points on Hillary), and considering the evasive way his posting is handling this whole thing (saying it's just being "tediously literal" to hold him accountable for the words he spoke, err, misspoke), my conclusion that your conclusion is bent that way based on bias/unusual standards/deceptions seems uncontroversial" Hey, you're right!
""They're not irrelevant if you state or imply that she is mostly lying or repeatedly lying."
At no point have I tried to say that every single sentence was a lie, just the ones in question."
That's an interesting clarification/defense. It would absolutely negate what you quoted of mine above had what you quoted accused you of saying that every single sentence was lie. But since it accuses you of using the word "largely" akin to "mostly", it negates nothing. It does offer up, however, our third instance of irony.
"Actually, the media accounts are very thorough"
well, yes, save the ones I actually quote. I must have missed your full quotations of the whole story in the special invisible electronic ink appearing (or not) on my screen. Or perhaps I just need to send away for my Obama decoder ring (though I know once I decode your posting they'll only tell me to eat my Ovaltine)
"Sinbad called what tense? The greeting ceremony? Or the plane flight? Because we're not talking about whether the plane flight was tense. Sinbad is clear about where he differs with the account"
Yes, he is now, as an, hmmmm, Obama supporter. Let's see, he said at the time it was "tense". He further elaborated on it being tense like LA, "bloods and crips". So your argument is he was comparing the people on the plane ride to the bloods and the crips? and I'm the one bending over backwards here? This is funnier than any of his routines.