Skip to main content

View Diary: Things I don't understand (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? What's my theory, Havoth? (0+ / 0-)

    I did restate Tony Situ's theory, and identified it as such, to clarify why your question did not point out an inconsistency. I offered no theory of my own, just observation, based on experience, about the changing nature of reports during and immediately after major incidents. (Had I known the diarist was unfamiliar with the concept of analogy or the meaning of "IF" I wouldn't have bothered.) The diarist finds that to be cliche, yet cannot deny either the truth of the observation or the pertinence to the questions raised in the diary. It simply did not please him or her. (Little here did, apparently, given the obnoxious responses to several commenters.)

    Nothwithstanding the wounded animal style response by you and the diarist, virtually every comment I've made on this matter since it began has either questioned or left open the matter of whether this event even constituted terrorism under the legal definition of the term. I certainly never concluded that the two were guilty of the bombing, though there seems to be little doubt of their involvement in the later events. I'm not sure what your beef is here, since I never even saw your diary, let alone commented in it, but the two of you could not be more wrong.

    Perhaps deriders always think people are deriding them.

    •  OK - IMHO, your 'restating' Tony's theory IMPLIED (0+ / 0-)

      your agreement with it. I inferred this from your inserted editorial comments "(My own hunch: their own accounts, if they had them, were already frozen.)...There's no inconsistency between Tony Situ's theory and the carjacking/robbery element."  - You restated the theory as if this was consistent with your own ideas of the series of events. Guilt of the suspects wasn't in discussion at that point. I do feel pretty strongly that you were derisive of debagger even asking questions (at which point I always wonder why some feel compelled to comment at all if they disagree with questions being asked in print) by saying this:

      "(If your answers [to a hypothetical question]...there's really no point to a discussion. You already have your framework; you're just looking for factoids to hang on it.)...Questions are good, but because several of your questions rest on premises I don't share..."
      Other than that, I didn't have a problem with your comments. I was actually responding to someone else anyway.
      I don't appreciate the "wounded animal" remark, but that's your opinion. I don't feel wounded at all. Not by you or anyone else on the Interwebs that disagree with My Basic Idea:
      1. Questions are OK.
      2. There Are no Stupid Questions, Only Unasked ones.  
      3. Answering any question by implying the question demonstrates predispositions of a conspiracy theory or bad thinking on the Questioner's part is bad form in general, impolite at best and does nothing to expand/explore knowledge in general.
      4. And Finally, Questions do not equal a Theory and some folk on here should not equate the two.
      That's pretty all I'm saying and now that I've tried to write it several times in several ways, I'm down to this edited bit. So thank you again for the opportunity to split hairs with you.  

      When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.-Mark Twain

      by Havoth on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:13:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site