1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    28 Sep '16 15:307 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.

    The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.

    Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other th ...[text shortened]... ely so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
    a) You're a hypocrite for accusing anyone of hair-splitting, since you're notorious for it.

    b) Reasonable assumptions aren't the same as accurate statements. Assuming the sun revolved around the earth was a reasonable assumption for early humans; it's far from accurate.

    Hilary's claim that the State Department told her this "95 percent" is NOT accurate; it's a lie, especially since she can't even name who from the Department supposedly told her this.
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 Sep '16 15:31
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.

    The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.

    Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other th ...[text shortened]... ely so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
    "I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate"."

    the dictionary does.
  3. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    28 Sep '16 20:001 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    a) You're a hypocrite for accusing anyone of hair-splitting, since you're notorious for it.

    b) Reasonable assumptions aren't the same as accurate statements. Assuming the sun revolved around the earth was a reasonable assumption for early humans; it's far from accurate.

    Hilary's claim that the State Department told her this "95 percent" is NOT accurate ...[text shortened]... 's a lie, especially since she can't even name who from the Department supposedly told her this.
    Your ridiculous twisting of the facts continues. Hillary never said that someone from the State Department personally told her that; she said the information came from the State Department. Do you know the difference? Do you realize it matters a great deal when you continue to make the unsupported, inflammatory claim that she "lied" about it?

    Probably not.

    EDIT: Her exact quote was:

    “We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the e-mails that were already on the system."

    "We" referring to herself and her staff.
  4. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    28 Sep '16 20:02
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate"."

    the dictionary does.
    I don't think so. The 90-95% figure was given as an approximate number; if it turns out to be "reasonable" (as it did) that pretty much means it was "accurate" to a significant degree (as it is).
  5. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    28 Sep '16 20:28
    Just to recap; Gowdy initially argued that Hillary must have lied about the 90-95% figure because he had a State Department study showing that only a tiny percentage of e-mails by their employees were saved by the system. Vivify adopted this argument for about 4-5 pages in the prior thread - there was no talk about the 90-95% figure being a "reasonable estimate"; it was an outrageous "lie".

    It turns out the study Gowdy cited SPECIFICALLY stated that the Secretary of State and other high level employees of that department DID NOT use the specific system that captured so few of the e-mails; that instead they used a number of systems that would capture a far higher amount. Thus, the claim that Hillary "lied" about the 90-95% figure fell to dust and Republicans stopped using it.

    We are left with the pathetic fallback position that vivify is now using i.e. that even though the 90-95% is approximately correct, Hillary "lied" when she said "we" got the information from the State Department. Apparently his position is that she took a wild guess that turned out to be about right and for some bizarre reason choose to say that the figure came from the State Department - which could have easily and immediately said it did not.

    I leave it to reasonable minds to determine how likely that scenario is.
  6. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    28 Sep '16 21:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your ridiculous twisting of the facts continues. Hillary never said that someone from the State Department personally told her that; she said the information came from the State Department. Do you know the difference? Do you realize it matters a great deal when you continue to make the unsupported, inflammatory claim that she "lied" about it?

    Probably ...[text shortened]... sis of the e-mails that were already on the system."

    "We" referring to herself and her staff.
    A lie constructed with the help of her team is still a lie. Lawyers do it with their clients all the time.
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    28 Sep '16 22:432 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Just to recap; Gowdy initially argued that Hillary must have lied about the 90-95% figure because he had a State Department study showing that only a tiny percentage of e-mails by their employees were saved by the system. Vivify adopted this argument for about 4-5 pages in the prior thread - there was no talk about the 90-95% figure being a "reasonable e ...[text shortened]... ely said it did not.

    I leave it to reasonable minds to determine how likely that scenario is.
    "We are left with the pathetic fallback position that vivify is now using i.e. that even though the 90-95% is approximately correct"

    Wrong. I never said that figure was "approximately correct". Way to misquote me. I never used "correct" and "Hilary" in the same sentence. I used the word "assumption".

    Your need to misquote in order to try to win a point is amusing.
  8. Standard membermchill
    Cryptic
    Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    3077
    29 Sep '16 00:292 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.

    The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.

    Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other th ...[text shortened]... ely so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
    no1maruder -1
    vivify - 0
  9. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    29 Sep '16 12:01
    Originally posted by vivify
    "We are left with the pathetic fallback position that vivify is now using i.e. that even though the 90-95% is approximately correct"

    Wrong. I never said that figure was "approximately correct". Way to misquote me. I never used "correct" and "Hilary" in the same sentence. I used the word "assumption".

    Your need to misquote in order to try to win a point is amusing.
    I didn't quote you so you are "lying" as you define it.

    Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Sep '16 12:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I don't think so. The 90-95% figure was given as an approximate number; if it turns out to be "reasonable" (as it did) that pretty much means it was "accurate" to a significant degree (as it is).
    "I don't think"
    yes

    " if it turns out to be "reasonable" (as it did) that pretty much means it was "accurate""
    "pretty much"
    tell me, if "reasonable" and "close enough" means accurate, what word would you use for "on target"? super accurate? very accurate? the accuratest?
  11. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    29 Sep '16 14:042 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I didn't quote you so you are "lying" as you define it.

    Falsely attributed, deliberately misrepresented, wrongly implied....whichever satisfies your legal definition of intentional falsehood.

    "Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?

    Bill Clinton, a former lawyer, once disputed the meaning of the word "is". You've disputed the meaning of "accurate". You attorney's are a silly bunch.

    I already explained the difference between an reasonable assumption and a correct statement. Early humans reasonably assumed the sun revolved around the earth. That assumption was far from correct.

    This is all getting away from the fact that falsely claimed the State Department said something that the department can't confirm. and that she can't even provide a name for to back up her claim. Clear evidence of a lie. You just want to focus on the "reasonable assumption" part, to make us forget about the blatantly false statement.
  12. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    29 Sep '16 17:04
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It's because Trump is a lot worse. The election is not a choice between two bad options, it's a choice between a bad one and a choice so awful I have no good metaphor or simile for it.
    I would expect nothing more or less from a Euro leftie. Little to nothing is known of Trump, as he hasn't been in government, but he has committed the great sin of making a lot of money, outside the Democrat party's methods. HC has a long track record with plenty of criminality from Arkansas to Benghazi.

    Also despite never really having a job, she has managed to be nearly as wealthy as is Trump. How does that happen?
  13. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    29 Sep '16 17:17
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate"."

    the dictionary does.
    A "reasonable estimate" may or may not be accurate. It is less accurate than a physical count, and the inaccuracy could be on either the high or low side. Different people and professions require different levels of accuracy. Your cardiac surgeon is hoped to be extremely accurate, even your carpet installer needs a degree of accuracy.

    If you are talking about the Federal debt, a billion here or there, well how much does it mean?
  14. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    29 Sep '16 17:30
    Originally posted by vivify
    Falsely attributed, deliberately misrepresented, wrongly implied....whichever satisfies your legal definition of intentional falsehood.

    "Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?

    Bill Clinton, a former lawyer, once disputed the meaning of the word "is". You've disputed the meaning of "accurate". You attorney's are a silly bunch ...[text shortened]... ocus on the "reasonable assumption" part, to make us forget about the blatantly false statement.
    Answer the question please:

    "Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?

    The State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the statement. Thus, you have no evidence the statement is even false; and that's only Step 1 in establishing a lie.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree