Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course she does -- you have provided it.

You made a statement: "However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country."

In response to that statement, she asked you a simple, specific question: "What constitutionally granted rights of people in this country do you feel were stomped on? . . . what specifically grinds your gears? (My emphasis.)

You answered her question, or more accurately avoided answering her question, by making the general statement that "information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that." (Really? You thought everyone knew what rights you believe were stomped on?)

You say you pick and choose when to have a full-blown discussion and when to be general. That's fine, and that's your prerogative, without a doubt. But as I said before, you can't be surprised if, when someone asks for a specific answer and you deflect the question with generalities, the assumption is made that you really don't have a specific answer. That assumption may, in fact, be incorrect. But a reader certainly has ample basis for making the assumption.

I have provided no basis for her assumption. She made that assumption from my first statement. And you are right. I chose NOT to respond with specifics because I don't feel I have to prove anything to her...especially not with the tone of her repsonse. I will repeat my earlier statements. She had no grounds to make an assumption that I haven't done research or that I must use google in order to research.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I have provided no basis for her assumption. She made that assumption from my first statement. And you are right. I chose NOT to respond with specifics because I don't feel I have to prove anything to her...especially not with the tone of her repsonse. I will repeat my earlier statements. She had no grounds to make an assumption that I haven't done research or that I must use google in order to research.

Completely and demonstrably false.

Her grounds are that you've provided no evidence to the contrary, and that the "null hypothesis" is no research. In the absence of evidence, the null hypothesis is generally the accepted correct answer.

You disagree with the null hypothesis. You can easily remedy this disagreement. QED?