Galloway's Senate Showdown

[Illuminati]

George Galloway had vowed to give US senators "both barrels" and after sitting - coiled - through an hour-and-half of testimony against him, he unloaded all his ammunition.

Far from displaying the forelock-tugging deference to which senators are accustomed, Mr Galloway went on the attack.

He rubbished committee chairman Norm Coleman's dossier of evidence and stared him in the eye.

"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," the MP declared.

The whole room scanned Mr Coleman's face for a reaction. The senator shifted in his seat - nervously it seemed.

It was the first time a British politician had been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate - but Mr Galloway cast himself not as the accused, but the accuser.

On stage at the heart of American power, he attacked the US-led war on Iraq and accused Washington of installing a "puppet" regime there.

'Lions' den'

The Scotsman launched into his opening statement with relish.

He had never received any money or any allocations of oil from Iraq. He was not, as the committee alleged, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do," he told the committee.

Mr Galloway had expected to testify before a panel of 13 senators in what he termed their "lions' den".

But he faced off against just two, Mr Coleman and Democratic counterpart Carl Levin.

It was Republican Mr Coleman who bore the brunt of the attack in one of the Senate's most flamboyant confrontations.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," he told the chairman, whom he labelled a "neo-con, pro-war hawk".

Mr Coleman tried desperately to take it without emotion, but at one point could not resist breaking in to a smile.

'He's no lyncher'

In the face of Mr Galloway's refusal to accept anything the senators were claiming might be true, they tried to establish a link between a Jordanian businessman who they believe received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, and Mr Galloway's children's charity.

Mr Galloway said the businessman had given money to the charity but he, Mr Galloway, had never known where it came from.

The senators believe that it came from Iraq, but they could come up with no proof and their questions ended.

Senator Levin later said he was "deeply troubled" that Mr Galloway had "ducked the question".

But it was Mr Galloway who looked most satisfied as he left the vast, wood-panelled committee room.

Outside in a corridor he told reporters he thought he had put the committee on the ropes, saying of Mr Coleman: "He's not much of a lyncher."

The senators, however, were playing down the confrontation.

'A knockout'

"This was not a wrestling match," Mr Coleman protested. "It wasn't a contest."

Asked his reaction to the "unusual" manner of the witness, he replied: "I was not offended by what he had to say, it was not relevant.

"The theatre, the dramatics - I was not looking at that. I had one goal and it was to make a record."

The pundits disagreed. One observer of Capitol Hill politics declared the result: "Galloway by a knockout - before round five."

Others cast the confrontation as Braveheart on Capitol Hill.

But though he left the building professing himself satisfied with his trip to Washington, only time will tell whether Mr Galloway has blown away the allegations he described as the "mother of all smokescreens".

Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553601.stm)

Considering the news coverage of the hearing, I'm surprised the usual suspects (especially RF) haven't posted this already :blink:

[lynx]

I've just finished watching the full BBC video of the testimony. Unfortunately it only shows the view of George Galloway.

I would have liked to have seen more of the expressions on the faces of the two senators as he tore into them, as seen on the edited and commented excerpts.

[vidcc]

He does seem to be someone with nothing to hide and from what I know of him he will be dining on this for some time to come. By all accounts his charity connection with Fawaz Zureikat was on the record.

The democrats could do with someone like him in the filibuster debate

[MagicNakor]

It was very entertaining. ;)

:shuriken:

[ruthie]

Galloway was great..when he got done blasting them at the hearing, I was cheering him. I wish some politicians here would have the balls already to open their mouths and speak the truth.

[JPaul]

I really don't like George Galloway, purely on a personal level, the man is smarmy. I have met him and he's the sort of chap that you count your fingers after having shaken his hand.

The fact that he "out-debated" a couple of minor US politicians on the basis of his self-righteous indignation impresses me not one jot. "You've got nothing on me" also strikes of "you can't prove it", rather than "I didn't do it".

The man is a consumate politician, clever and devious and I have no time for him.

[Barbarossa]

Galloway was great..when he got done blasting them at the hearing, I was cheering him. I wish some politicians here would have the balls already to open their mouths and speak the truth.

If you like him that much, you can keep him... :D

[enoughfakefiles]

I really don't like George Galloway, purely on a personal level, the man is smarmy. I have met him and he's the sort of chap that you count your fingers after having shaken his hand.

The fact that he "out-debated" a couple of minor US politicians on the basis of his self-righteous indignation impresses me not one jot. "You've got nothing on me" also strikes of "you can't prove it", rather than "I didn't do it".

The man is a consumate politician, clever and devious and I have no time for him.

Agreed. :dry:

If this man was such a good politicion why did he not stand in his own constituance. To me it was a well rehearsed speech. :ph34r:

[lynx]

"You've got nothing on me" also strikes of "you can't prove it", rather than "I didn't do it".Which bit of "I have never bought or sold a barrel of oil" was unclear? Having categorically stated his innocence, "you've got nothing on me" takes on the meaning "someone has been making all this up". A subtle nuance of the English language you seem to have overlooked.

The man is a consumate politician, clever and deviousI don't like the man myself, but I think this statement better fits your beloved fuhrer leader, Tony B'Liar. Not much chance of that though, given your "unthinking" support.

If this man was such a good politicion why did he not stand in his own constituance.Other political parties do this all the time, why did Gordon Brown not choose the nearest constituency when his own was lost due to re-organisation? You can hardly say he went for the easy option, going up against one of Labour's prefered candidates in a "safe" seat.

To me it was a well rehearsed speech.No doubt you would have expected him to go totally unprepared. Get real.

[Ricey]

I was absolutely laughing my arse off when he said

"I have met Saddam Hussain twice, the same amount of times as Donald Rumsfeld, the only difference is - he went to sell him guns"

Lmao...priceless. Really priceless.

[GepperRankins]

i need to see this :shifty:

[JPaul]

Which bit of "I have never bought or sold a barrel of oil" was unclear?
Oh that's right, people always tell the truth when accused of misconduct.

We can now save a lot of time using the lynx system of trial.

Q - Did you do it.

A - No

Case dismissed, next.

[GepperRankins]

is there any evidence that he did?

[Rick Phlegm]

Other political parties do this all the time, why did Gordon Brown not choose the nearest constituency when his own was lost due to re-organisation? You can hardly say he went for the easy option, going up against one of Labour's prefered candidates in a "safe" seat.
Yes you can. He specifically chose the constituency with the highest concentration of Muslim voters and where the anti-war sentiment aimed at Labour was most prevalent.

He knew his best chance of election was by pandering to them by specifically attacking Labour as opposed to presenting any other issues. His campaign was a disgrace and the man's an arse.

[enoughfakefiles]

Yes you can. He specifically chose the constituency with the highest concentration of Muslim voters and where the anti-war sentiment aimed at Labour was most prevalent.

He knew his best chance of election was by pandering to them by specifically attacking Labour as opposed to presenting any other issues. His campaign was a disgrace and the man's an arse.

:ohmy:

An honest man like george galloway would`nt do this would he.

Why has this story come about about him having a million barrels of oil. It had to come from somewhere.???

[ruthie]

Oh that's right, people always tell the truth when accused of misconduct.

We can now save a lot of time using the lynx system of trial.

Q - Did you do it.

A - No

Case dismissed, next.

You are right, JPaul...take bush, for instance..he hasn't told the truth about anything.

[enoughfakefiles]

You are right, JPaul...take bush, for instance..he hasn't told the truth about anything.

How do you know george manure has.????

[ruthie]

Galloway's remarks about Iraq were right on.

[lynx]

Oh that's right, people always tell the truth when accused of misconduct.

We can now save a lot of time using the lynx system of trial.

Q - Did you do it.

A - No

Case dismissed, next.
You said he hadn't refuted the charges, I was pointing out that he had.

The senate committe declared him guilty without any evidence. Is that your prefered method of trial?

In a complaint about the method of trial, pointing out the lack of any credible evidence is paramount, yet you imply it amounts to an admission of guilt.

Better go back to the voting booth, you don't have to think in there.

[GepperRankins]

did i start this voting joke? :01:


seriously though the only 'evidence' i've heard is about 2 years old where an iraqi government building was completely gutted by fire except for a letter mentioning galloway. i haven't followed the news over the last few days though :unsure:

[Biggles]

I am not a big Galloway fan and it is probably fair to state that at the outset .... although I do think he is a talented orator and good communicator.

Nevertheless, something is simply not right. If, as suggested, he had the rights to sell 20 million barrels of oil that would amount to (at the old price of $30 a barrel) $600 million. The terms of Saddam's voucher deals would result in a net profit of a couple of million but the full transactions would need to take place in order to realise the profit. I defy any Joe Bloggs to launder $600 million through his building society account - indeed through any account. This is in the realms of the really serious racketeers and even the Colombian drug cartels find it hard to hide the traces of their activities. From a purely financial audit perspective I find it hard to believe that an individual citizen could successfully hide these quantities of money for 10 years or more as is claimed by the charge.

I also believe that if there was a scrap of genuine evidence against him it would have been used in our courts before the election. I do not think Mr Blair would have said "George is not so bad really, lets just forgive and forget".

So what is going on? I read somewhere that the French politician named is a rather stuffy old right winger who has never been to Iraq in his puff. The Russians accused I have never heard of, but apparently have been even less polite than Galloway regarding the accusations.

I may be wrong here but I do find it slightly suspicious that so many wild accusations have come to rest against the doors of those who either vocally opposed the war or who used the UN to try to block the war. There might be more merit in the committee looking closer to home at all the financial ties that link US companies to the rampant oil smuggling Saddam indulged in (a quantity substantially larger than the OFF transactions btw)

Some of the other accusations against Galloway also seem fabricated - particularly his supposed pro-Saddam stance. The truth is Galloway through the links with his Lebanese wife was (and almost certainly still is, even if his marriage is a bit rocky at the moment) pro Palestinian and was particularly vocal on that front.

I am sure as time passes the whole "Iraq, who got what" thing will unfold but, as ever, probably too late to bring the bulk of the miscreants to book.

I did think it was to Galloway's credit that he was prepared to go to the committee and say his piece.

[JPaul]

Like I said Les, I don't like him on a personal basis, it has nothing to do with whether these allegations are true or not. I just don't like that sort of greasy, smarmy politician.

It is also widely reported that he said to Saddam Hussein "Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability". Now he must have known (or at least suspected), at that time, what type of dictator Hussein was. He, as a UK politician was overtly supporting his regime and that on a world stage. I find that untenable.

[JPaul]

did i start this voting joke? :01:


Yup, good thing you did, it appears to have tickled Lynx's fancy. It makes me chortle every time he posts it.

[Biggles]

Like I said Les, I don't like him on a personal basis, it has nothing to do with whether these allegations are true or not. I just don't like that sort of greasy, smarmy politician.

It is also widely reported that he said to Saddam Hussein "Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability". Now he must have known (or at least suspected), at that time, what type of dictator Hussein was. He, as a UK politician was overtly supporting his regime and that on a world stage. I find that untenable.

Unfortnately he is not an isolated case on that front.

The quote is actually quite interesting and one that gets aired a lot (especially in the Telegraph :) ).

However, his primary activity as I recall was the children's cancer charity and the campaign to get some of the sanctions (particularly the medical supplies) lifted. As a rule greeting Saddam with "Hi! smeg breath" was not the most effective way of getting anything done in Iraq. The words Galloway chose to stroke Saddam's pride were, in my opinion at least, suitably eloquent whilst devoid of any real warmth or meaning. I do also have some sympathy with Galloway in the claim that many of those who now are anti-Saddam were some of Saddam's stongest supporters during the 80s when he was committing the worst of his attrocities.

That Saddam used Galloway for propaganda purposes in trying to get the sanctions lifted is without doubt the case. It is also true that Galloway is too smart to not know what Saddam was looking for from his visits to Iraq. However, children were dying and something did need to be done. That Gorgeous George enjoyed the limelight and controversy this work brought is also true - and is also why so many of us have an antipathy to him. He was right on a number of issues on Iraq but succeeded in being right in such a way that frequently irritated - not least those within his own party.

If, as seems at the moment to be the case, he is innocent as charged, I predict he will continue to irritate for some time to come.

[JPaul]

Sorry, but my opinion is that "The Mariam Appeal", whilst in and of itself laudible was actually motivated by political machinations.

Little more than shroud waving, which I find repugnant.

[Biggles]

J2

As I said earlier, if there was any actual evidence both the Telegraph, which he successfully sued, and Tony Blair would leap upon it like manna from heaven.

I suspect Gorgeous George saw the Senate accusations simply as an opportunity to keep the Iraq issue on the front pages and, as you rightly point out, an opportunity to drink from the gilded media cup. I can only assume George has hollow legs as he is wont to drink from that cup frequently.

I see some of those less than keen on George over here are slightly peeved that the committee laid only glancing blows on him and gave him more media space than he could have ever hoped for. I also suspect the committee will be hoping the French politician does not follow Galloway's example. If for no other reason than the proceedings could take forever with translations of lengthy rants and diatribes. :)

[GepperRankins]

indefatigability

i saw it on tv. i bet the translator's heart skipped a beat on this one :pinch:

[lynx]

J2, I'll string your sentence together for you, so that other's don't miss the nonsense in it.

Mr. Galloway did an admirable job of denying the "charges", however, actual refutation requires a denial... ...supported by evidence.

Tell me, how do you provide evidence that something didn't happen? Regarding evidence, you seem to be looking at the wrong set of feet on which to place that shoe. The burden of proof lies with those making charges.

Besides all of which, why did he feel compelled to appear before a committee he was not in any way beholden to?
Had he not done so, he would almost certainly have been accused of shying away from facing the committee. By appearing in front of the committee (or the two who bothered to turn up, if you want to talk about courtesy it seems distinctly lacking in your own "oily politicians") he exposed to the world the sham that is being perpetrated.

[GepperRankins]

Tell me, how do you provide evidence that something didn't happen? Regarding evidence, you seem to be looking at the wrong set of feet on which to place that shoe. The burden of proof lies with those making charges.

Besides all of which, why did he feel compelled to appear before a committee he was not in any way beholden to?
Had he not done so, he would almost certainly have been accused of shying away from facing the committee. By appearing in front of the committee (or the two who bothered to turn up, if you want to talk about courtesy it seems distinctly lacking in your own "oily politicians") he exposed to the world the sham that is being perpetrated.

i imagine it's all very satisfying to pwn people spreading bullshit about you :happy:

[GepperRankins]

Once again, you make too much of too little.

I think, if Mr. Galloway were honestly imperturbed by the committee's "accusations" (that is to say, innocent), then he would not have feared any accusations of having shied from an appearance; instead, he did as Biggles joins me in pointing out: The man is a media hog, just as are all the members of the committee.

Perhaps you also missed my intent (by my use of the plural "polititians") to include more of them than just your Mr. Galloway; if I was less than clear on that, I apologize.

By and large, though, I see here and elsewhere a developing fandom for Galloway, whose new and loyal zealots favor him for no reason apart from his nicely executed speechifying at the expense of America and it's pursuits-it's just that simple.
you just answered your own question presuming there was one, i've only scanned this thread.

this showing off is just an ego boost and gains him popularity just for the fact that it's an underdog standing up to "the man"

[lynx]

Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement. Given that difference in definitions it appeared that you were requiring him to provide proof of his innocence, rather than questioning my use of the word.

A consequence is that the bit about
Then all that is required to refute a charge is a categorical denial?

Does this occur as a courtesy, and only to oily politicians? appears to apply only to Mr Galloway, since he is being required to deny the accusations against him and the members of the Senate committee are not (though perhaps they should be). I accept your assertion that it was meant to apply to all involved.

As to the subject of fandom, I've already stated that I don't like the man. But I like it even less when a group of bully boys start throwing around unsubstantiated accusations. I, like many others, applaud when someone stands up to the bullies. I suspect you've been known to do the same yourself.

You seem to think that's because it is at the expense of America, well I can only ask what it is that you think "America" is trying to achieve. I'm afraid it smells very much like another witch-hunt. As a nation you seem to be rather fond of those, yet they never seem to turn out well. I fear this one will be no exception.

[JPaul]

Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement.
Which dictionary are you using for this definition of refute.

I have to agree with j2 on this one, to refute requires proof.

[GepperRankins]

but why should he need proof if there's no evidence against him? how can he get it?

[lynx]

Which dictionary are you using for this definition of refute.

I have to agree with j2 on this one, to refute requires proof.
Refute (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=refute)

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

or

1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: rebut, controvert]


I didn't expect to have to teach you English, nor how to use a dictionary.

[GepperRankins]

dictionary.com is american isn't it?

anyway, why argue about what refute means and if he did it.
it's not like a burglary, he can't have an alibi in a case like this. the case can only be argued on evidence against him.

[JPaul]

Refute (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=refute)

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

or

1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: rebut, controvert]


I didn't expect to have to teach you English, nor how to use a dictionary.

What are you talking about it starts with "to prove", then goes on to "overthrow by argument or proof", proving my point and not yours.

or

"overthrow by argument, evidence or proof" then "prove to be false or incorrect", again showing you to be incorrect.

Have you taken leave of your senses. It is customary to refute something by providing evidence to support your case, not disprove it.

[GepperRankins]

it also says to deny accuracy or truth of...


but it doesn't matter 'cos i'm right

[lynx]

overthrow by argumentDo I even have to teach you how to read aswell.

[GepperRankins]

i'd hardly call name calling an arguement in a legal sense :unsure:

[GepperRankins]

with favouritism aside.

what laws have been broken and what evidence is there?

as far as i can see it is just a bunch of people picking on a person with different political ideals; accusing him of something impossible to disprove.

[lynx]

As best I can discern, he is thought to have had a chunk of the Oil-for-Food pelf as recompense for his direct or indirect actions in aid of Saddam's scheme of passing around oil "vouchers".

Without getting into the hairy details, it seems he is at least guilty of willful ignorance, which is to say he had "guilty knowledge".Certainly, this is what the Senate committee would have you believe, it suits their purpose very well too. If you do indeed look at the "hairy details", you are more likely to find the allegations are lacking in substance. As pointed out by Biggles, our own government would have acted long before now if there was anything to act upon. Even if your assertion that he was guilty of willful ignorance were true, that in itself implies that he could not have "guilty knowledge", the two are by definition mutually exclusive.

It would follow that the popular reasoning in the Senate is along the lines of, "Our knowledge of your knowledge would help us get to the bottom of this mess".

It may well be they have merely a desire to know what he knows, which would be beneficial in an investigatory sense, and no penalty to him.Then surely all they had to do was ask. After all, he was in front of the committee and under oath, why did they not use that opportunity? It could equally be argued that they already knew what he knew, and didn't particularly want it revealed. It is no good bleating afterwards that you haven't got the information you wanted if you haven't asked the question.

His obvious aversion to sharing his thoughts with a bunch of capitalist pigs renders any interchange too adversarial to bear fruit.They didn't seem to mind things being too adversarial when they were making the accusations. The way they behaved does not seem to me to be a good way to achieve cooperation. It is a good excuse for not asking the question yet still trying to blame the other party. But upon examination the argument simply doesn't hold water.

[JPaul]

Do I even have to teach you how to read aswell.
Seriously, have you stopped taking some medication.

[GepperRankins]

it means both, stop bickering :snooty:

[JPaul]

it means both, stop bickering :snooty:
Feck it's contagious.

[Rat Faced]

Since all the "evidence" was supplied by the same chap that has been convicted of fraud in the past and supplied most of the US/UK "Intelligence" that led to a war, and was proven incorrect.

The same chap that was the US's preferred candidate for post "leader" in Iraq, and had to settle for Oil Minister or some such... i'd have to say that any of this "evidence" would have to be taken with a pinch of salt at the start, and not after looking at the facts... as was the case last time.

Mr Galloway is an arsehole... however; at least so far, he appears to have stood up for what he believes in, rather than what is good for his career. As such, he has much more of my respect than most of the hypocrits in power on both sides of the Atlantic.

There was an in depth look at his accounts after the Daily Telegraph story... and a holiday home worth £40,000 (and well within his means as an MP) is hardly an off shore account and mansion worth £millions as was claimed at the time.

[GepperRankins]

Feck it's contagious.
:unsure:

[JPaul]

Mr Galloway is an arsehole... however; at least so far, he appears to have stood up for what he believes in, rather than what is good for his career.
That seems to be the case, if you limit his career to being an MP and a member of the labour Party.

However I am sure there are, or will be, more strings to his bow.

[Rat Faced]

and since no one else here thinks the Oil-for-Food scandal is a scandal, or even amounts to an other-than-ordinary event


Yes we do and yes it is.

However, as Biggles pointed out..

a/ The smuggling operation was/is a lot bigger and also.

b/ Even though we all KNOW that there were plenty of Americans involved, none that have a slightly Republican bent appear to be getting named, despite the fact that this evidence is a lot easier for your senate committee to actually obtain.

c/ The smuggling continues, and the Oil For Food has finished.. so the priority would appear to be the former.

d/ Its no more important than the missing $millions from the Iraq invasion/rebuilding, which doesnt appear to be getting investigated at all.

e/ REALLY tired with hypocracy, in all colours atm anyway :P

[lynx]

it means bothI think I said that. :blink:

[JPaul]

I think I said that. :blink:

No you didn't, you told j2 that in the UK to refute did not require proof.

FFS do you even read your own posts.


"Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement".

[lynx]

No you didn't, you told j2 that in the UK to refute did not require proof.

FFS do you even read your own posts.


"Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement".
You've just quoted where I've said it means both. :frusty:

Perhaps you should try to understand the meaning of words, rather than just repeating them parrot fashion. You are deluding yourself if you think there is only one definition, or that one definition has more weight than the other because it happens to appear first in a dictionary. I quoted an American dictionary to show that it included both meanings.
Here's the equivalent from a UK dictionary (Cambridge University Press):

refute: to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:Notice that it too agrees with what I said: proof is not obligatory (1 Morally or legally constraining; binding.
2 Imposing or recording an obligation: a bill obligatory.
3 Of the nature of an obligation; compulsory: Attendance is obligatory. Mathematics is an obligatory course. ).

Unlike you, I don't take parts of posts out of context and try to twist them to fit a particular argument. You may like to try it sometime, you would possibly find people are more amenable (1: disposed or willing to comply; 2: readily reacting to suggestions and influences) to your viewpoint (1: a mental position from which things are viewed).

[manker]

lynx.

You wrote 'it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement' - this is incorrect as it can also mean to disprove. You'll agree that disproving something is entirely different to denying something.

If you, as you assert, meant that it can mean both - then simply is simply the wrong word to use as it's an absolute.

[GepperRankins]

i'd have just said deny :rolleyes:

[lynx]

lynx.

You wrote 'it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement' - this is incorrect as it can also mean to disprove. You'll agree that disproving something is entirely different to denying something.

If you, as you assert, meant that it can mean both - then simply is simply the wrong word to use as it's an absolute.Absolutely.

[Rat Faced]

i'd have just said deny :rolleyes:

Refute sounds better, and is much easier to say for the lazy person than "Strongly Deny".

I'd refute it, and being a "Civilized" society, they'd have to accept that without evidence unless THEY could prove otherwise.

The burden of proof is on those accusing, not those being accused... otherwise its Libel and Slander.




Hmmm, maybe George can get a couple more $$ out of this scandal by doing the same to these g'vment people that he did to the Telegraph. :rolleyes:

Bloody sure i wouldnt mind being slandered and libeled, if i could make a few quid out of it.. :ph34r:

[vidcc]

Hmmm, maybe George can get a couple more $$ out of this scandal by doing the same to these g'vment people that he did to the Telegraph. :rolleyes:

Bloody sure i wouldnt mind being slandered and libeled, if i could make a few quid out of it.. :ph34r:




Mr. Bush got most of his tort reform through.... Galloway can only sue if he can produce evidence that if he won it won't cost the person he filed against a single penny. :rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

Ah, but this was on the International News...

He was libeled everywhere, not just in the USA..

He can take it to any court he wants to, not necessarily just the US courts.

Just limiting the movement of these knackers because of contempt of court warrents (becuse they didnt pay the libels) might make it worth while... at least we can keep these small minded miscreants in there own country, in case their relative mental deseases are catching and polute the rest of us. ;)

[vidcc]

Diplomatic immunity..that and not only do we not recognise international courts...we spit on them :tank: :P

[Rat Faced]

I think you misunderstand Diplomatic Immunity.. or you having a larf.

Basically, it allows representatives of foreign governments to work and operate under the laws of their home country while abroad... its not a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

If the Law that is broken is also illegal in their own country, they should be prosecuted there.. If not, they can be deported.

Only specific persons get Diplomatic Immunity in a country, and their credentials have to be presented before it even comes into effect. If a new Envoy breaks the Law before these credentials are presented, he is not covered by immunity.

The Senetors were not in a foreign country and Galloway was not an official envoy... therefore no immunity applies.


Some countries give immunity within their Parliaments, such as the UK... however that immunity only covers the UK. They can still be sued from abroad if such occasion arises. Hell, English Law is often different to Scottish Law.. never mind a different nation altogether. :P

[vidcc]

rf

Look at the post..... do you really think there is anything serious in it ???? :rolleyes: couple that with the silliness of the preceding

It has a tank in it !!!!!

[Rat Faced]

/me directs vidcc to ... "your having a larf"

However, its a truth that a LOT of people do misunderstand the meaning of that phrase... so i took the opening :P

[GepperRankins]

Why are you fellows still banging on about this?

I furnished you all with the last word a page or two back; only JPaul and Manker seem to realize it... :huh:




















:D
ahem

[lynx]

ahemNope.

Zygote I think.

[JPaul]

Why are you fellows still banging on about this?

I furnished you all with the last word a page or two back; only JPaul and Manker seem to realize it... :huh:




















:D

Lynx has re-invented the English language. He told you that your definition of the word was incorrect, or at least different from the UK version. Rather strangely he then posted 4 definitions, 3 of which agreed with you as I recall.

He said that it "simply" meant to deny. However he later said that it could have two meanings, one of which was yours. So the "simply" was at best misleading. In fact no, it was pish.

So he has managed to tell you that you were wrong, then proved you were right. However his own proof appears to have little effect on him.

It's quite fascinating to watch someone lose their grip on Reality (ooer missus) like this.

Shall we see what the concise Oxford has to say on the subject.

Refute - Prove falsity or error of (statement, opinion, argument, person advancing it). Rebut or repel by argument.

So please ignore any suggestion that you used the word incorrectly old bean, whether in the US or the UK.

Gepper was correct, he really meant strongly deny.

[lynx]

JPaul.




Never mind, I can't be bothered trying to teach you English any more. You simply aren't worth wasting my time over.

[JPaul]

JPaul.




Never mind, I can't be bothered trying to teach you English any more. You simply aren't worth wasting my time over.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I can try to find you a bigger shovel if you want.

Or are you finished making an arse of yourself.

[Rat Faced]

English is an evolving Language, if someone wishes to maintain and use a word according to its original meaning, then they are merely showing their age.

Originally, to refute something required proof.

This has now been replaced by the meaning of "Strongly Deny" in common usage.

Ergo: Your both correct, just a few decades apart in the common usage of the word.

As I stated earlier, i would use the word to strongly deny something. The burden of proof being on the accuser, not the defender on both sides of the Atlantic at present. Unlike at times in the past.

Unfortunatly, although dictionaries often add meanings as they occur, they dont tend to remove them with as much zealous. This is the cause of a lot of arguments that are meaningless.

When such misunderstandings occur, it would be sensable for all parties to use a different word to describe their position.

I choose the word kangaroo, for the aboriginal meaning... because its late and i've confused myself again. :blink:

[Rat Faced]

erm..

I forgot to exclude those words that have a definitive legal definition. :blushing:

However as these definitions change from country to country, i guess it doesnt matter. :P

[JPaul]

Flippin heck, my posts are being deleted again.

Quelle surprise.

[Rat Faced]

However as these definitions change from country to country, i guess it doesnt matter. :P

Ah, yes...the terrible tyranny of the dictionary.

Word definitions have gone the way of weight divisions in boxing-the more, the merrier.

It was bound to happen, too, given so few care even about spelling.

Funny, those who wish to push back the walls which bound what is or is not acceptable are out-anted by yet another cohort who desire the outright elimination of walls...

Dictionaries are now obsolete.

Surely you mean that is the tyranny of the national courts.. :wacko:

As Law needs definitive definitions of words occasionally in order to work, im unsure whether i'd call it a tyranny.

It does however sometimes work to move the language apart between countries... however TV, more than makes up for this in bringing the language together; it is quicker and more popular.... often changing the meanings of words by the context and way they are used on an international scale..... Biatch :P

[JPaul]

Given that j2 was discussing a formal hearing, it was surely appropriate to give the word it's proper meaning.

Using a dictionary is wicked for achieving that.

[lynx]

Flippin heck, my posts are being deleted again.

Quelle surprise.If you make abusive posts, what do you expect?

[manker]

Flippin heck, my posts are being deleted again.

Quelle surprise.If you make abusive posts, what do you expect?Is it only abuse against moderaters that gets deleted.

In any case, I hardly think an observation to the tune of '... or haven't you finished making an arse of yourself' counts as abuse. More friendly banter, if you ask me.

[lynx]

Frankly I'm sick and tired of JPaul's repeated attempts to force his narrow and pedantic view of the English language onto other members of this forum. All he ever does is create an argument for the sake of it.

In the end everyone gives up trying to argue with him since he seems to be incapable of seeing any viewpoint other than his own. He then treats this as some sort of victory and attempts to belittle the "loser". Put in that context, it is not friendly banter, it is abusive.

[JPaul]

Frankly I'm sick and tired of JPaul's repeated attempts to force his narrow and pedantic view of the English language onto other members of this forum. All he ever does is create an argument for the sake of it.

In the end everyone gives up trying to argue with him since he seems to be incapable of seeing any viewpoint other than his own. He then treats this as some sort of victory and attempts to belittle the "loser". Put in that context, it is not friendly banter, it is abusive.
As I have said to others, the posts are there to read and people can decide themselves. Oh wait a minute they aren't, they all got deleted at one point.

BTW the post which was deeply offensive was something along the lines of " Can I get you a bigger shovel. Or are you finished making an arse of yourself" hardly the most offensive thing I have read here, by quite some distance.

I often see other people's viewpoint and either agree or disagree with it. The fact that you do not like the way I do it is frankly of little import to me. It is quite obvious you have a problem with me, has been for some time. So it goes, life is like that.

[lynx]

JPaul.




Never mind, I can't be bothered trying to teach you English any more. You simply aren't worth wasting my time over.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I can try to find you a bigger shovel if you want.

Or are you finished making an arse of yourself.Since you are so insistent, I've restored it.

Of course, that means I will have to respond. I was trying to avoid that in an attempt to cool the situation.

You seem to think I've conceded something. The only thing I've conceded is your inability to acknowledge that words can have more than one meaning, a situation I raised initially but with a small grammatical slip as pointed out by Manker.

What a sad world you must occupy, with words having only one rigid definition and no leeway for expansion of language. I suspect you may be happier with Latin, dead like it's originators.

But wait, since you are probably happier with it, let's look at the Latin origins of the word refute - refutare, to repel. Nothing about proof there. I think you may be confusing the word with confute, a word with similar meaning but requiring the inclusion of proof.

Keep the shovel for yourself, you are doing a fine job.

I have nothing against you personally, I don't even know you ffs, but I don't like the "la la la I'm not listening, this is the only truth" trick you often resort to. Repeating the same words over and over again doesn't make them true so don't try it on me, it won't work. Or attack me again if you like, better men than you have tried and failed.

[JPaul]

I think you'll find that YOU told j2 that the word meant something different in the UK.

It was therefore YOU who was narrow minded about the meaning of the word.

And it was YOU who was being pedantic about it.

Please read your own posts.

[MCHeshPants420]

Refute


1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.

Source (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=refute&searchmode=none)

[lynx]

Repetition, repetition, repetition.

Are you saying it doesn't have another meaning? If so, you are wrong.

The UK emphasis is on denial, I have assumed (since I am not an American) that the US emphasis in on proof. I've already dealt with that issue (if you bother to read my posts).

Once again you repeat this "do you ever read your own posts" nonsense. It is a good way to try to convince others who may be new to this thread (and perhaps to delude yourself) that I haven't covered the matter, but since both they and you can go back and read them I can't understand why you keep coming out with this tripe.

Perhaps you should reprogram your hotkey, it clearly is not generating the quality of garbage you expect.

[JPaul]

Feck sake we have an entomologist (:naughty: where's mangit)

[lynx]

Refute


1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.

Source (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=refute&searchmode=none)
There you go, US definition.

Thanks for that.

[JPaul]

The UK emphasis is on denial,
Perhaps in your world, but not in mine, or in the dictionary.

[manker]

Feck sake we have an entomologist (:naughty: where's mangit)I had Chebus down as a cunning linguist but never an etymologist :snooty:



Btw - cawk awf, Rodney.

[JPaul]

Feck sake we have an entomologist (:naughty: where's mangit)I had Chebus down as a cunning linguist but never an etymologist :snooty:



Btw - cawk awf, Rodney.
Curses, foiled by my own smillie.

Damn you naughty smillie, damn your eyes.

Particularly the brow.

[lynx]

The UK emphasis is on denial,
Perhaps in your world, but not in mine, or in the dictionary.You keep saying this, but provide no evidence from a UK dictionary that this is the case. I've provided evidence that I'm correct (Cambridge University Press if you remember), I'm waiting for you to confute it.

[JPaul]

I posted the entry from the Concise Oxford.

Perhaps it was deleted.

[manker]

Was the Oxford English dictionary JP quoted earlier not UKish enough.

I may read the rest of this thread later.


Edit: Apologies, I may also start refreshing before I interject.

[JPaul]

Britannica gives us

1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>

Which would make the requirement of proof the first and therefore main definition.

It would also make you wrong in what you said to j2.

[JPaul]

There you go, from earlier

Shall we see what the concise Oxford has to say on the subject.

Refute - Prove falsity or error of (statement, opinion, argument, person advancing it). Rebut or repel by argument.

[manker]

BritannicaOooh, I duno. Sounds a bit foreign to me, finishing with an 'a' like that.

Have you any thing slightly more British than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[JPaul]

BritannicaOooh, I duno. Sounds a bit foreign to me, finishing with an 'a' like that.

Have you any thing slightly more British than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
I could ask her Majesty.

I know she uses the forum regularly.

[lynx]

Here's Roget's thesaurus entry:


Main Entry: refute
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: discredit
Synonyms: abnegate, argue against, break, burn, burn down, cancel, cancel out, confute, contend, contradict, contravene, convict, counter, crush, debate, demolish, disclaim, disconfirm, dispose of, disprove, dispute, evert, explode, expose, gainsay, invalidate, negate, oppose, overthrow, parry, quash, rebut, reply to, repudiate, shoot down, show up, silence, squelch, tear down, thumbs down, top

Source (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=refute)

Note that most of the alternatives have nothing to do with proof.

The order of entries in a dictionary does not necessarily imply any order of their importance of meaning, particularly where the usage has changed or is changing. In such a case it is often up to the compiler as to which appears first and a traditional listings such as the ones you've quoted will usually put the older (and therefore sometimes the least frequently used) meaning first. I've already said this, but you chose to ignore it. Inconvenient?

Just out of interest, have you some particular reason for trying to prove me wrong. I already explained the misunderstanding to J2 (who is really the only one it should concern) some 70-odd posts back.

Btw, also from the Concise OED:

it is often now used to mean simply ‘deny’. Did you miss that bit out?

Edit: Oh, and how about retracting the allegation that your Concise OED post was deleted?

[JPaul]

FFS, your using Roget's Thesaurus now.

That really is struggling.

ttfn.

[manker]

I've read the thread now.

I have to say that I wasn't aware of any distinction, at all, between the UK definition of refute and the US definition. After googling for a bit, I'm still not.

It seems to me that the more comprehensive dictionaries rank their definitions for each word in accordance with importance. Others do not, they merely use the word or to suggest interchangability. Examples here (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/refute?view=uk) and here (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=66450&dict=CALD). Obviously these numbers mean importance as you can easily tell with this simple example (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=the) - the meanings get more obscure, grammatically technical and infrequently used as you go lower down the list.

In all of the ones I looked at that ranked the importance of the definitions, the necessity of proof was always ranked #1 and the deny option was always at #2. I only searched the UK google pages for dictionaries since that's the only thing in dispute, as I understand it.

I think that primarily to refute means that you have to provide proof. The secondary meaning, as I see it, means to simply deny an accusation. The UK and US dictionaries are in total harmony.



Just to get one thing clear. I talked about linguistics there because I enjoy the subject, I didn't make a post about G.G. because his grandstanding to the world interests me not one jot.

[Rat Faced]

JPaul...

The entry being 1st doesnt mean it is the main use of the word, its the other way around.

An example of a word that has changed drastically, and so can be shown easier is Gay.

gay
adj 1: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery
hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile" [syn: cheery,
sunny]
2: full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts
were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such
a jocund company"- Wordsworth; "the jolly crowd at the
reunion"; "jolly old Saint Nick"; "a jovial old
gentleman"; "have a merry Christmas"; "peals of merry
laughter"; "a mirthful laugh" [syn: jocund, jolly, jovial,
merry, mirthful]
3: given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led
a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the
ladies"
4: brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out in brave new
dresses"; "brave banners flying"; "`braw' is a Scottish
word"; "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with
gay plumage" [syn: brave, braw]
5: offering fun and gaiety; "a gala ball after the
inauguration"; "a festive (or festal) occasion"; "gay and
exciting night life"; "a merry evening" [syn: gala, festal,
festive, merry]
6: homosexual or arousing homosexual desires [syn: queer, homophile]
n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual
attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homosexual,
homo]

The accepted use of "Gay" these days covers the LAST 2 entries.

The original entry is hardly, if ever, used.

As i said earlier... they add meanings to Dictionaries, they do not remove them when no longer used.

Therefore your evidence appears to suggest; that it used to require proof, however in the more modern usage it is to deny.


/me wonders off again, wondering why people dont just pick another word to describe their position, rather than argue over meanings that are both correct.

[manker]

Therefore your evidence appears to suggest; that it used to require proof, however in the more modern usage it is to deny.By that rationale, house is now used more as a bingo call or a type of music than it is to describe a domicile.

That definition of gay you found is clearly an exception. Dictionaries add meaning as and when they arise, not when they become more used than the existing defiinition and they do shuffle them when one definition becomes more important than the other - at least they most definitely should. As can be seen here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gay).

The above is clearly not chronological, yet sexual orientation is above happy. Weird, eh.

[JPaul]

Given j2's use, in referring to a legal hearing (the context if you will) then the formal meaning of the word was the more appropriate.

Given j2's use, in referring to a legal hearing (the context if you will) then the meaning which required proof was the more appropriate.

Given the above


Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement. Given that difference in definitions it appeared that you were requiring him to provide proof of his innocence, rather than questioning my use of the word.


was incorrect.

[Rat Faced]

It wasnt a legal hearing, otherwise the committee would have turned up :P

However i take your point...

I also have to admit though; before this thread i didnt even KNOW that there was a meaning to that word that meant proof was required. Which just goes to show that dumb Geordies are not the masters of the English Language everyone else is. ;)

[JPaul]

It wasnt a legal hearing, otherwise the committee would have turned up :P
Was it an illegal hearing then :P :P

[lynx]

I'm pretty sure it was a legal hearing, he was sworn in. It was also stated afterwards that he would be in serious trouble if it was found that he had lied to the committee, which would not be the case if it was not a legal hearing.

I'd just like to point out that J2 was reflecting my use of the word:

You said he hadn't refuted the charges, I was pointing out that he had.Consequently it is actually my understanding of the meaning which is more appropriate. My subsequent statement refers to that and is completely valid. It matters not one jot whether the hearing was a legal one or not.