On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:31:30 -0400, JDG wrote > I think the word "nothing" is being used as to describe polices that > would have the practical effect of contiuing the "status quo" > policies in Iraq of the previous 12 years. Given what those > policies had managed to accomplish in 12 years, I think that it is > appropriate to describe them as the "status quo", or essentially, > "doing nothing."
Is that anything more than an argument from your conclusion? > On the other hand, there have been times in history when a majority > of Christians were following heresy, so a majority vote is by no > means definitive. Nobody suggested that such a consensus is definitive -- that's taking what I said to an illogical extreme. All I said was that when this happens, it is appropriate to at least *consider* what they are saying, to meet with them and explore the proposal. Tony Blair and Clare Short did so. Our leaders refused. > I am also quite sure that Bush did consider what they were saying. Is that what he was doing when we refused to meet with them? Are you sure because there is evidence, or because you're just sure that's the kind of person he is? Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
