On Oct 29, 1:02*pm, Hawke wrote:



Why should I admit to something that I don't believe is true? Or is so
petty that it was never worth mentioning and only was by political
opponents. The question for you is why do you value the accusations that
come only from right wing opponents of the Clinton's?

The question I have is why do you not believe it is true? Certainly
there are enough facts that say it is true. I do not only value the
accusations made by right wing opponents of the Clintons. I just
thought it strange that you can not bring yourself to believe what is
well documented to be true.

* Pompous because you bring up having gone to college as if it is

something *special.

I only brought it up in the first place to establish that I have a
degree in a field that a lot of discussions take place in. That means
I'm not just some ignorant or untrained amateur like most folks here
are. Second, only about 25% of adult Americans have completed a college
degree. Meaning 75% don't have one. The fact that 75% don't have one
does mean having one is special. Of course, that's by my definition of
special.

If you post logical coherent statements, everyone will believe you are
intelligent. No need to bring up that you went to college. I do not
think I ever said if I went to college, but perhaps I did. I figure
that if I post intelligent things, people will think I am intelligent
regardless of whether I went to college or not. And if they think I
am intelligent, then I probably am somewhat special.

* I expect a large majority of the people who post

here have graduated from college.

Statistically speaking that would not be true. As I said 75% of people
don't have a degree and people in the "trades" in general are even less
inclined to have one. So you might "expect" the majority of people who
post here have degrees the statistics say otherwise. Excuse me if I
choose to go with statistics over your expectations.

Yes No and Maybe. You need to consider that those that read and post
in RCM might not be considered the general public. So while a college
degree might be not especially common in the general public, I think
it may be very common amoung those that post here. So I would suggest
you are not so hot with statistics as you confuse a small group as
being representative of the general public. Did you take statistics
in college?

* *And incoherent because you make up

your own definitions as to what words mean. *It sounds to me as if
they understand you all right.

Like I said, they do understand me. They just don't like hearing points
of view that are not from the far right side. As to making up my own
definitions that is not something I alone do. So do most people.

What you write does not enrage me. *I mean to say why should I get mad
just because you can not make a cogent coherent statement.

Obviously I make cogent and easily understandable statements all the
time. Otherwise you would not understand me. As to why what I write
would make you mad is because I express opinions you strongly disagree
with. FYI that sort of thing makes many on the right very angry.

It really does not bother me that you express opinions, whatever they
are. I do try to point out to you where you make logical errors.
Such as the one above on statistics.


* *Some of

the things you say confuse me because you use your own definitions of
words that differ from the standard convention.

So you believe. But I think the problem is your way of comprehending
what is written. You are very rigid in your thinking and are not good at
grasping anything besides the obvious.

Actually I am very good at grasping ideas beyond the obvious. But
believe when posting in a public place such as RCM where there are
many people with different opinions, that one needs to express oneself
concisely. It may have something to do with having edited a lot of
technical stuff where sloppy writing is not accepted.


* And I *have come up

with cogent arguments backed by fact that prove you wrong about saying
there was no damage done by departing Clinton staff. *So wail away at
the keyboard and try to worm out of it, but anyone reading this now or
as long as it is archived on the internet can see how immature you
are.

Some might agree with your assessment, Dan. But not everyone. In fact,
many people would agree with me that a small amount of breakage in the
White House isn't properly described as damage.

But the statement you said was false clearly said $15,000 in damages.
That is what you said was false.

Especially when the
claims are made by right wingers who are out to smear the Clinton's
name. Moreover, I doubt many people will agree with you that what I have
said is in any way immature. What I think they will think is that you
were really desperate to be right about the Clinton's doing a lot of
"damage" to the White House. So you constructed an ineffective argument
to back that assertion up, and that the truth is what I have maintained
all along, and that is the White House was not damaged by the Clintons'.
Characterizing it that was was politically done and didn't reflect the
truth.



I do not think the actions of the Clinton's staff do not have
anything to do with the Clintons. I can not conceive of the Clintons
condoning what was done. And it was probably the action of one or two
people, not the actions of most of the staff. Likely it was done by
someone who was about to be out of a job and someone who had worked
really hard to keep the Democrats in the White House. So I am not in
the least bit desperate to be right about Clinton's staff doing a lot
of damage. That all happened a long time ago. But that is what the
GAO reports says. You are the one that is desperately defending
something. I am just trying to see if you can accept facts.


Dan


Hawke