Galloway's Senate Showdown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Do I even have to teach you how to read aswell.

---

Seriously, have you stopped taking some medication.

it means both, stop bickering :snooty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

it means both, stop bickering :snooty:

---

Feck it's contagious.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Feck it's contagious.

---

:unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

it means both

---

I think I said that. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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):

Quote:

---

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).

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.

i'd have just said deny :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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:

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lethal weapon II

Diplomatic immunity

---

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

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

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 !!!!!

/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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

ahem

---

Nope.

Zygote I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

JPaul.




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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

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

Flippin heck, my posts are being deleted again.

Quelle surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Flippin heck, my posts are being deleted again.

Quelle surprise.

---

If you make abusive posts, what do you expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Refute

Quote:

---

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

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.

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