Contrast?
in making such a prediction, namely, that ONE circumstance will lead to a situation, by defintion means you've excluded the other. I can predict that the Panthers and the Jaguars (US football teams) will be in the Super Bowl. By defintion, that means that *nobody else will*. (there being only 2 teams who can).
So, if I know two bartenders looking for a job at the same pub (We'll call them George and Al) and I predict that George will buy me a beer if he gets the job, that means that I've said that Al wouldn't?
Nope. All I've said is that George *will*. I have not excluded Al from buying me a beer. I might have no trouble believing that Al would buy me a beer as well. If I believe it to be almost certain for one, but only highly likely for the other, am I to be constrained to say that, explicitly? Under what other circumstances am I to be constrained to pay lip service to all possibilities when mentioning one?
if BUSH LOST the opposite would occur. Technically possible, but why then would you specify BUSH as the problem?
Why? Why opposite? That still sounds like "if'n yer ain't fer us..."! And "BUSH as the problem"? Why must there be one problem?
My prediction wasn't unreasonable, heck, it doesn't 'blame' Bush for anything but being true to his economic principles.
Bush's boys screwed up. *BUT* no more than Clinton's boys screwed up, or that I know that Gore's boys would have.
Oh, you know that, do you? You predict that, had Gore won, he would have screwed up? By your lights, doesn't that mean that you knew that Bush's boys wouldn't?
*chuckle*
I believe there is a causal link between what's happening now and Bush's election.
That doesn't preclude my belief that similar effacts might be produced via other events and influences.
Gee - would you be able to understand my prediction better if I reworded it for you? How about "If Bush is elected, anti-trust will not be persued rigorously". Or do you think that that means that I am saying it was persued rigorously BEFORE the election?
It doesn't, you know.
