And that is a reasonable and logical opinion that can be defended without resorting to misleading "facts" and exaggerations.

Agreed but again I say where is the beef?

I do not believe anyone outside of the pentagon high offices have the factual numbers.

So one link says one thing & another says it is hogwash & so on & so forth.

As you said......

There has been one link posted, and that one has just as much credibility as the others.

Bottom line remains the same. All else is all a diversion in the end .

It is like saying Jimmy raped five women...A defence lawyer would try to have it thrown out because some sources say it was only four?

This is what it has become & that is the reason it is tolerated at all. Not surprisingly by a population that is more concerned with who is the next american idol.

Agreed but again I say where is the beef?...........

.........So one link says one thing & another says it is hogwash & so on & so forth.........

As was said in a previous post; The actual numbers do not matter if the conservative numbers still make the same point.

Therefore, to divert the debate to "how deception could affect the debate" (a valid point usually), is a prevarication in this case.

(This is about a statement alledging that the US is significantly spread out around the world (to paraphrase).)

(Flying is quoted here because I agree with what he is saying...where's the beef?)

Agreed but again I say where is the beef?...........

.........So one link says one thing & another says it is hogwash & so on & so forth.........

As was said in a previous post; The actual numbers do not matter if the conservative numbers still make the same point.

Therefore, to divert the debate to "how deception could affect the debate" (a valid point usually), is a prevarication in this case.

(This is about a statement alledging that the US is significantly spread out around the world (to paraphrase).)

(Flying is quoted here because I agree with what he is saying...where's the beef?)

I am sorry, but I am not sure how anyone can justify lying or even exaggerating to make a point.  I will write this here, and it you two want to continue to gloss over the issue, well, that is up to you.  I will make no further comments on it.

To point out a lie or exaggeration, as I did, is in keeping with honesty and truth.  Even if I agree with a point, that does not justify playing loose with the facts.  And I don't see how anyone can approve of doing this.

I pointed out one fallacy in Ron Paul's arguments.  When asked why that even matters, koheesti gave a reason why not being accurate is important.  So to call both of us or either one of us lying (your term being prevarication:  Etymology: Latin praevaricatus, past participle of praevaricari to act in collusion, literally, to straddle, from prae- + varicare to straddle, from varus bowlegged

Date: circa 1631: to deviate from the truth ) is rather un-called for.

I am sorry, but I am not sure how anyone can justify lying or even exaggerating to make a point.  I will write this here, and it you two want to continue to gloss over the issue, well, that is up to you.  I will make no further comments on it.

To point out a lie or exaggeration, as I did, is in keeping with honesty and truth.  Even if I agree with a point, that does not justify playing loose with the facts.  And I don't see how anyone can approve of doing this.

I will do the same...But it is your words not mine that state someone is lying or exaggerating.

I will say yet again in case you missed the 2 or 3 times I have said already....

Even you claim one site is as good as another so.......where is the beef?

I have said none know the factual numbers because like so many things within the US Military Industrial Complex or the US monetary system/ FED for that matter........... the truth is hidden.

So.......................? How do you call one a liar or a exaggerator when you no more have the fact than the one you claim also does not ?

Last but not least none has glossed over anything......that truly matters at the end of the game. Instead it is the end of the game that is being yet again attempted to be glossed over or dismissed.

Agreed but again I say where is the beef?...........

.........So one link says one thing & another says it is hogwash & so on & so forth.........

As was said in a previous post; The actual numbers do not matter if the conservative numbers still make the same point.

Therefore, to divert the debate to "how deception could affect the debate" (a valid point usually), is a prevarication in this case.

(This is about a statement alledging that the US is significantly spread out around the world (to paraphrase).)

(Flying is quoted here because I agree with what he is saying...where's the beef?)

I am sorry, but I am not sure how anyone can justify lying or even exaggerating to make a point. I will write this here, and it you two want to continue to gloss over the issue, well, that is up to you. I will make no further comments on it.

To point out a lie or exaggeration, as I did, is in keeping with honesty and truth. Even if I agree with a point, that does not justify playing loose with the facts. And I don't see how anyone can approve of doing this.

I pointed out one fallacy in Ron Paul's arguments. When asked why that even matters, koheesti gave a reason why not being accurate is important. So to call both of us or either one of us lying (your term being prevarication: Etymology: Latin praevaricatus, past participle of praevaricari to act in collusion, literally, to straddle, from prae- + varicare to straddle, from varus bowlegged

Date: circa 1631: to deviate from the truth ) is rather un-called for.

Come, come come, now. To trace the etymology of a word to bolster your case, when the etymology has little bearing on the modern and currently accepted use of the word (not to mention the obvious intent), I have to ask you about your own integrity.

Come, come come, now. To trace the etymology of a word to bolster your case, when the etymology has little bearing on the modern and currently accepted use of the word (not to mention the obvious intent), I have to ask you about your own integrity.

I am not going to respond again to the issue of base numbers and whether is it OK to give false figures (I have had my say).

But I will apologize for cutting and pasting part of the Mirriam-Webster definition of prevarication, so let me get more to the point:

: to deviate from the truth : equivocate

synonyms: see lie

link

Is that more clear for you?  I took out the references to its etymology.

So once again, writing that I am prevaricating merely because I took issue with some so-called facts is out-of-line, in my humble opinion, as is questioning my integrity.

Come, come come, now. To trace the etymology of a word to bolster your case, when the etymology has little bearing on the modern and currently accepted use of the word (not to mention the obvious intent), I have to ask you about your own integrity.

Accepted use? Oh yeah, that reminds me, I wanted to ask you...In New Zealand do they really still use the word "niggardly"?

To use semantics when the real intent of a word is obvious, is not an actual argument against the moot.

Come, come come, now. To trace the etymology of a word to bolster your case, when the etymology has little bearing on the modern and currently accepted use of the word (not to mention the obvious intent), I have to ask you about your own integrity.

Accepted use? Oh yeah, that reminds me, I wanted to ask you...In New Zealand do they really still use the word "niggardly"?

i'd like to see him use it in e. oakland or down in compton

Come, come come, now. To trace the etymology of a word to bolster your case, when the etymology has little bearing on the modern and currently accepted use of the word (not to mention the obvious intent), I have to ask you about your own integrity.

Accepted use? Oh yeah, that reminds me, I wanted to ask you...In New Zealand do they really still use the word "niggardly"?

i'd like to see him use it in e. oakland or down in compton

You make your own point there about some Americans

As to koheesti, I am certain that most of my friends and relatives would know the word......but what's your point? Are you implying that quoting the etymology of a word to try to deconstruct an argument, ie using sematics, is the same as using a vocablulary that some people are unfamiliar with?

If he uses the word in East Dallas, he's liable to get cut-up as well.

Edit in:

I knew what the word meant. I also know what ludicrous means.

If he uses the word in East Dallas, he's liable to get cut-up as well.

Edit in:

I knew what the word meant. I also know what ludicrous means.

Good for you! I realise that you know "niggardly" now.

Do I recall correctly that you asked in a post whether your interpretation was correct, implying that you were not sure of the meaning then?

As for you knowing "ludicrous".... I may deign to argue that in the other thread.

Who cares????

Semantics.... disingenuous argument.

Vocabulary.....irrelevant argument.

Spelling.....pointless argument.

Semantics.... disingenuous argument.

Vocabulary.....irrelevant argument.

Spelling.....pointless argument.

So when you state that other posters are lying, then that is merely semantics?

Semantics.... disingenuous argument.

Vocabulary.....irrelevant argument.

Spelling.....pointless argument.

So when you state that other posters are lying, then that is merely semantics?

Is that a trick question, like, "have you stopped beating your wife?".

Ahhhh...you're referring to the semantics about "prevaricate". I maintain that I used the modern and common use.

I have accused nobody of lying...(which is more than can be said of some other posters around here)

Semantics.... disingenuous argument.

Vocabulary.....irrelevant argument.

Spelling.....pointless argument.

So when you state that other posters are lying, then that is merely semantics?

There IS an irony in your post, too.

Come, come come, now. To trace the etymology of a word to bolster your case, when the etymology has little bearing on the modern and currently accepted use of the word (not to mention the obvious intent), I have to ask you about your own integrity.

Accepted use? Oh yeah, that reminds me, I wanted to ask you...In New Zealand do they really still use the word "niggardly"?

i'd like to see him use it in e. oakland or down in compton

You make your own point there about some Americans

As to koheesti, I am certain that most of my friends and relatives would know the word......but what's your point? Are you implying that quoting the etymology of a word to try to deconstruct an argument, ie using sematics, is the same as using a vocablulary that some people are unfamiliar with?

Sure, I know what the word means. I'm talking about modern, accepted use - and that obviously varies country-to-country. But you've got to be pretty thick to not notice what it sounds like. Not long ago some politician got in trouble for using it. Funny, but not as funny as the African-Amercian city council member from Dallas who during a meeting protested the use of the word "blackhole" in reference to wasting funds. "Why not a WHITE hole?!"

funny stuff...

To tie this in to the topic, if we succeed in making Afghanistan a full-fledged, freedom-loving, flag-waving democracy, this is the stupid shit they have to look forward to. Of course, it's better than what they have now.

While Bedlam does have relaxed rules let me please note that personal nasty attacks are still not allowed here. Argue your case, don't attack the poster. You are all old enough and have been members long enough that you really should not have to be reminded to mind your manners.

So when you state that other posters are lying, then that is merely semantics?

Is that a trick question, like, "have you stopped beating your wife?".

Ahhhh...you're referring to the semantics about "prevaricate". I maintain that I used the modern and common use.

Just so we know, what do think is that common use? 

I have accused nobody of lying...(which is more than can be said of some other posters around here)

Stick your "deliberate subterfuge" accusation in the same place where you stuck your last liar accusation that you could not back up.

Sure, I know what the word means. I'm talking about modern, accepted use - and that obviously varies country-to-country. But you've got to be pretty thick to not notice what it sounds like. Not long ago some politician got in trouble for using it. Funny, but not as funny as the African-Amercian city council member from Dallas who during a meeting protested the use of the word "blackhole" in reference to wasting funds. "Why not a WHITE hole?!"

funny stuff...

To tie this in to the topic, if we succeed in making Afghanistan a full-fledged, freedom-loving, flag-waving democracy, this is the stupid shit they have to look forward to. Of course, it's better than what they have now.

I know what it sounds like. That is irrelevant. Semantics used as an argument is a very different subject to phonetics used as an argument by ignorant people......(and I say that it IS ignorant to oppose the word for the fact that it has a phonetic simmilarity to an unPC word).

Yes, funny stuff.

Stick your "deliberate subterfuge" accusation in the same place where you stuck your last liar accusation that you could not back up.

He accused me of lying and then could not substantiate it, hence I referred to it as his "liar accusation". I was not saying his accusation made him a liar. (It did make him mistaken though, but that was not my point)

Stick your "deliberate subterfuge" accusation in the same place where you stuck your last liar accusation that you could not back up.

He accused me of lying and then could not substantiate it, hence I referred to it as his "liar accusation". I was not saying his accusation made him a liar. (It did make him mistaken though, but that was not my point)

OK, my bust on that.  I didn't see it that way when I read it, but now that you explained it, yes, I can see what you mean.

My understanding of "prevaricate", is to avoid the subject at hand. Bring into the debate irrelevancies...like spelling, or exact numbers (when the point is not actual numbers but the effects of ANY numbers), or etymology being different from today's usage.....

Stick your "deliberate subterfuge" accusation in the same place where you stuck your last liar accusation that you could not back up.

He accused me of lying and then could not substantiate it, hence I referred to it as his "liar accusation". I was not saying his accusation made him a liar. (It did make him mistaken though, but that was not my point)

OK, my bust on that. I didn't see it that way when I read it, but now that you explained it, yes, I can see what you mean.

Yeah, I guessed that, I could see afterwards how it could have been read. I have read things out of context, or with my own (mis)interpretation too.

My understanding of "prevaricate", is to avoid the subject at hand. Bring into the debate irrelevancies...like spelling, or exact numbers (when the point is not actual numbers but the effects of ANY numbers), or etymology being different from today's usage.....

In that case, you didn't contend that I was lying, either.  

However, I do think that is the wrong usage of the word.  According to Merriam-Webster, prevaricating means "deviating from the truth" with a synonym of "lying."

The first googled entry I found was this:

"to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie."

I was also able to find this:

"to turn aside from, or evade, the truth; equivocate

to tell an untruth; lie"

so the first part of that may fit in a little with your comprehension, but I think it is clear that the most common meaning is that of telling an untruth rather than deflecting a discussion from the core matter.

The first, top listed reference I found from googling "prevaricate definition" was "beat around the bush....", which is pretty much the same as how I use it and have always used it and have always heard it used.....

But I grant you your not taking my intention....I can see where you are coming from.

Again, I say that semantics is not useful debate....defining meaning, sure, but not trying to divert from the argument by detracting to word usage.

It's the same as those posters that detract by spelling corrections.

Ahhhh..."detract"....that's a word that has ties with my meaning of prevaricate.

"Sleight of hand" would fit somehwere in the context of things too.

The purpose of language is to communicate thoughts and ideas. Just thought I'd mention that.

If he uses the word in East Dallas, he's liable to get cut-up as well.

Edit in:

I knew what the word meant. I also know what ludicrous means.

Good for you! I realise that you know "niggardly" now.

Do I recall correctly that you asked in a post whether your interpretation was correct, implying that you were not sure of the meaning then?

As for you knowing "ludicrous".... I may deign to argue that in the other thread.

Who cares????

Semantics.... disingenuous argument.

Vocabulary.....irrelevant argument.

Spelling.....pointless argument.

Nope, it wasn't me that asked what the word meant. Your memory has failed you once again.

While we are on the subject, how is this for a little lesson in semantics?

"In an aside to this reply....

My handicapped dead children statement was faulty recollection, which I admitted, and so should not be classed as deliberate exageration."

Should we now address your exagerations (sic) as simply "faulty recollection"?

To tie this in to the topic, if we succeed in making Afghanistan a full-fledged, freedom-loving, flag-waving democracy, this is the stupid shit they have to look forward to. Of course, it's better than what they have now.

Boy that wraps it up.......

Eat democracy or die Afghani's.....Its better than what you have now.....of course.

To tie this in to the topic, if we succeed in making Afghanistan a full-fledged, freedom-loving, flag-waving democracy, this is the stupid shit they have to look forward to. Of course, it's better than what they have now.

Boy that wraps it up.......

Eat democracy or die Afghani's.....Its better than what you have now.....of course.

I'm sure the black city councilman in those video links prefers being an elected official sitting in on a governmental meeting complaining about "black holes" to working the fields as a slave or being lynched for looking the wrong way at a white woman. But maybe people are different wherever it is you are from.

If he uses the word in East Dallas, he's liable to get cut-up as well.

Edit in:

I knew what the word meant. I also know what ludicrous means.

Good for you! I realise that you know "niggardly" now.

Do I recall correctly that you asked in a post whether your interpretation was correct, implying that you were not sure of the meaning then?

As for you knowing "ludicrous".... I may deign to argue that in the other thread.

Who cares????

Semantics.... disingenuous argument.

Vocabulary.....irrelevant argument.

Spelling.....pointless argument.

Nope, it wasn't me that asked what the word meant. Your memory has failed you once again.

While we are on the subject, how is this for a little lesson in semantics?

"In an aside to this reply....

My handicapped dead children statement was faulty recollection, which I admitted, and so should not be classed as deliberate exageration."

Should we now address your exagerations (sic) as simply "faulty recollection"?

Yes, faulty recollection again...it wasn't you it was maccaroni.

Otherwise, the rest of your post is a disappointment. There had been a glimmer of hope yesterday or the day before (there's that vague memory again) with one of your posts, but you have regressed again with poor logic and probably incorrect word usage.

I thought I was making progress with you.