Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
just to say this, ace, when i find myself qualifying a position you outline as absurd, it's not about you as a person but about the position. obviously, using words like absurd creates problems for that separation, both for myself and you and for other folk who read the posts. i feel like we've been fencing long enough that you would understand as much, but maybe this is a good time to remind you and myself of this.
the persistent explanation for talking past each other is that there's no agreement on framework.
given that a framework is what allows one to define variables, see relations between them and assign importance or weight, if there's no agreement about framework there won't be agreement about anything else.
maybe at some point we'll figure out how to get around this, but for the moment it seems like that's where things are stuck.
but it's not personal, for what it's worth.
i'll try to ramp back my writing a bit so that fact is clearer.
|
The more important point is regarding backing up a claim. I have no problem with occasionally being the target of someone blowing off steam or whatever (I do it), but when a direct question is asked or a response given to a counter point and then those making personal attacks don't have the (fill in the blank) to respond with an answer/agreement or further justification for continued disagreement, it kind of takes the fun out of an exchange and certainly is not a challenge.
---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralMao
In other words, it was about an increase in troops...
|
I think the Iraqi people were getting mixed messages from the US regarding our resolve to see the Iraqi matter through, creating an environment of uncertainty. In an environment of uncertainty, those promoting chaos can easily prevail. The surge sent a message that the US was committed to the "end" (not literal).