Do you really believe everything people say?
No, I don't. I don't believe you. Especially when the evidence proves otherwise.
Do you really feel that you can just make things up out of thin air and then expect people to believe them?
Do you really believe everything people say?
No, I don't. I don't believe you. Especially when the evidence proves otherwise.
Do you really feel that you can just make things up out of thin air and then expect people to believe them?
Yes. The 2000 article hardly sought to "establish" anything regarding this specific issue, it devotes barely a sentence fragment to the question, and it provides no more detail than anything we've heard since then.That article from 2000 establishes that his war injuries prevent him from using a keyboard, thus negating the charges that OMG WAR HERO is not "playing a card". Yet you require further detail?
Yes, sir, "proof" is a mischaracterization. Proof would be more than sufficient; but it is above and beyond what I "demanded". Competent evidence, substantiation, plausible explanation is as far as it went.Proof is a mischaracterization?
In your own words:
Substantiate: to establish by proof or competent evidence
1. You would be the first in the thread to mention anything so silly as, "he doesn't want to learn," which I agree would indeed probably be a complete fabrication.You have every right to want a candidate that is in tune with technology, if that's what is important to you. But statements like he "doesn't want to learn", that he knows "virtually nothing about it on a personal level", and that "he doesn't have to answer your criticisms" are complete fabrications and demanding that he respond to them is ridiculous.
ib4 my genitals come up as a topic of conversation again.
So are there any actual moderates, independents or anyone else who hasn't made up their mind reading these threads...
Yes. The 2000 article hardly sought to "establish" anything regarding this specific issue, it devotes barely a sentence fragment to the question, and it provides no more detail than anything we've heard since then.
For the umpteenth time: it all may very well be true, and if only someone credible would tell us about, e.g., specific nerve damage, muscle spasms, mangled brachial plexi, anything plausible like that—then the issue of the extent of his disability is settled as far as I'm concerned. No one has been willing to even come close, therefore, yes, we are left to wonder whether we're having a get-out-of-hot-water-free card played on us. Why not just tell the whole truth and bury the question once and for all?
Yes, sir, "proof" is a mischaracterization.
1. You would be the first in the thread to mention anything so silly as, "he doesn't want to learn," which I agree would indeed probably be a complete fabrication.
2. "He knows virtually nothing ..." accurately describes McCain's own words.
3. "He doesn't have to answer ..." accurately describes the implication of his surrogates evasively citing generic injury as an exemption from being judged for his personal unfamiliarity with technology. It also now seems to echo your own defense on his behalf.
I think the point was more actually that McCain has said that he is computer illiterate and doesn't want to learn.
For the umpteenth time: it all may very well be true, and if only someone credible would tell us about, e.g., specific nerve damage, muscle spasms, mangled brachial plexi, anything plausible like that—then the issue of the extent of his disability is settled as far as I'm concerned. No one has been willing to even come close, therefore, yes, we are left to wonder whether we're having a get-out-of-hot-water-free card played on us. Why not just tell the whole truth and bury the question once and for all?
In that post it seems rather clear you were addressing me. A thousand pardons if I read that wrong.1. Actually, no I wasn't. There seems to be some misunderstanding based on an insta-post. The post of mine to which you were refering was directed towards Cymek's post, not yours. I didn't quote his because when I was replying there was no post between his and mine.
The ellipsis was purely for brevity; anyway, the main idea of that paragraph I thought was clear enough: "In my view, such [a profound] appreciation [of information technology] can truly come only with significant personal experience using the technology oneself." McCain himself says he has virtually none, but has recently started attempting to learn.That wasn't your whole quote. It was "virtually nothing about it on a personal level". The paragraph from which that quote comes seems to be talking about technology in general.
I wouldn't say that, nor will I be entrapped by injected superlatives and absolutes; what I would say is that being less than familiar with a ubiquitous core instrument of technology makes him less than familiar with technology on the whole. That's perfectly fair.a leap of logic in saying that being less than familiar with an instrument of technology makes him unfamiliar with technology on the whole.
And here I think we've finally hit upon the fundamental but subtle difference between your viewpoint and mine. In fact I would agree completely with the above quote if I were to add "necessarily any attempt," and "that he lacks any understanding."It just seems unreasonable to believe that there was any attempt to be dishonest in rebuttal, given the previous general knowledge that he was disabled, and that he lacks understanding on whole of the HUGE technology industry because he doesn't use a computer.
I've already addressed precisely what amount of detail I believe is appropriate.Sorry, but if that's not enough for you, no amount of detail is going to make you happy.
In that post it seems rather clear you were addressing me. A thousand pardons if I read that wrong.
And here I think we've finally hit upon the fundamental but subtle difference between your viewpoint and mine.
Where the disparity appears to lie is in the threshold of credibility that we apply to the McCain folks. You seem content to assume that their statements, rebuttals, and explanations are generally true unless they can be shown to be overtly suspect; whereas I consider any campaign operative's statements to be generally suspect unless they can be shown to be overtly true. Based on the pitiful lack of veracity in many of their absolutely idiotic ads, they damn well deserve to have a razor sharp eye fixed on them anytime they open their mouths.
Yes, but when people come in here and start making claims that have absolutely no basis in fact we can't help but cry fowl. Every fact about this matter points to the conclusion that hal has made. You are basing your assertions almost completely on your political leaning "I don't like McCain so obviously it must be true that he left his wife because she wasn't pretty" when the truth is that every concrete piece of evidence we have points otherwise. You should base your arguments upon evidence, instead of wild theories and speculation that are politically convenient for you.