IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Yes you are. You are saying there is only one to way to
interpret the ad. Your way. That is where our disagreement is.
Seamus
New No again
I'm being told that my interpretation is wrong and that I'm using the word incorrectly, hence my repeated beating you over the head with the freakin definition.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New And you keep missing
Personally, I think your opinion is wrong, but it is the logic you are using to prove that your opinion is correct is what I am arguing about.

To me, you are saying because one definition of the word traitor defines it using the word betray, that is the most logical meaning of the ad. I am saying that most people don't use the word betray when they want to call someone a traitor. They call them a traitor. That is why I think your logic is flawed.

If it is your opinion that moveon.org wanted people to read the ad as calling the general a traitor, I don't agree, but I am not arguing that point.





Seamus
New Then we should stop
because I think they wanted it read that way and I also think that it was done with that as its intent.

You seem to think these guys are alot nicer than they really are.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Horse's mouth.
[link|http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus_ad.html|MoveOn.org]:

Was the language inflammatory?

The language of the ad was intended to be both hard-hitting and catchy. The truth about the mainstream media is that the kind of analyses with which some of us feel more comfortable don\ufffdt generate enough attention or news coverage to shift the debate.

Phrases like \ufffdGeneral Betray Us\ufffd are \ufffdsticky\ufffd\ufffdthat is, they get repeated again and again in the media\ufffdbecause they are so memorable. It was precisely because this ad was controversial and the language in it was \ufffdsticky\ufffd that the allegations at its core were widely discussed.

Moreover, every word of the ad was entirely accurate\ufffdthe General has in fact cooked the books, and in doing so, he betrayed the public trust.


The link has a link to a YouTube clip of Eli Pariser on HardBall discussing the ad (for those interested - I haven't seen it).

I take their comments at face value - because it's the simplest explanation; I guess you don't. Oh well.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who can't resist beating a dead horse sometimes...)
New Probably should
I don't think they were trying to being nice with the ad or make any claims about how nice they are in general. Just that claiming someone is a traitor is a line they chose to get close to, but not cross. I do think they knew some people would think they crossed that line, but were willing to gamble that more voters would side with them. Not a good gamble to take in this environment.

I wasn't trying to change your opinion, I still think a majority of people don't think of traitor when they use the word betray.

Your flawed logic aside, I don't think most people who think the moveon.org ad called the general a traitor didn't have anything other than a gut feeling.

And I can stop anytime I want.
Seamus
     BS - straight up. - (bepatient) - (24)
         Quoting from definitions "1: ...", commingling with "2: ..." - (CRConrad) - (23)
             I'm not co-mingling anything - (bepatient) - (22)
                 ... - (Another Scott) - (21)
                     Whatever -NT - (bepatient) - (20)
                         The rigidity of the true believer - (rcareaga) - (19)
                             Because on the point of traitor - (bepatient) - (18)
                                 And Rand's first (main?) point: On all those other points... - (CRConrad) - (5)
                                     My opinion is not incorrect. - (bepatient) - (4)
                                         And you've never, ever, over the years claimed... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                             Well sorry then - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                 Echo much? Yeah, that's exactly what I fucking well *said*. -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                     Well hu-freakin-zah for you. -NT - (bepatient)
                                 Because on the point of traitor you are not correct - (Seamus) - (1)
                                     Yes, we are at an impasse. -NT - (bepatient)
                                 This is what bugs me about this whole mess - (Seamus) - (9)
                                     Who is the "us" - (bepatient) - (8)
                                         You are making my point by admitting that - (Seamus) - (7)
                                             No. - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                 Yes you are. You are saying there is only one to way to - (Seamus) - (5)
                                                     No again - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                         And you keep missing - (Seamus) - (3)
                                                             Then we should stop - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                 Horse's mouth. - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Probably should - (Seamus)

Looks like a helluva party to me! Begone evil spirits!!
84 ms