See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On July 27th, 2010 at 10:44 am, corkie said:

   On July 27th, 2010 at 10:18 am, Yashmak said:

   Nowhere did I suggest that those responsible shouldn’t be held responsible, or that because some small good may come of this in the long run, that it exonerated the leaker of guilt.

   Nowhere did I suggest that you suggested that.

   I clearly stated that your point could be used as an over justification for the leak.

   I notice that you don’t deny this.

2. #102
   On July 27th, 2010 at 10:45 am, chapoutier said:

   My analogies were brilliant.

   No doubt you think they were. They were not, however. They were trite and absurd to the point of having little to no bearing on the subject.

   I stated that Yashmak’s point could be used to provide an overall justification.

   That wasn’t all, or else you would not have spent multiple posts coming up with inane (sorry–brilliant, my bad) analogies in an attempt to argue with us.

   1. We’ve already established that the NYT went to great lengths not to ignore the information well prior to the information being made public. Certainly, you’re not going to attempt to assert that the NYT ignored the information until it was made public.

   Stupid. I was not talking about the NYT ignoring it. I was talking about the public ignoring it once Wikileaks went live with it, which exactly what you were advocating for when you endorsed the idea of the media totally ignoring the leaks, or at best simply reporting on the leak without referencing any of the leaked material.

   You seem to think it a big deal that the Times didn’t wait to review the material until wikileaks published it. That is absurd because, yet again, NOTHING THE NYT DID OR DID NOT DO WAS GOING TO CHANGE WHAT WIKI DID. What purpose would waiting a month before starting would have served? Oh wait–I know. It would have meant the US government didn’t get the same 1 month heads up. Because it was the Times that actually went to them and disclosed that this was coming, what the documents were and sought guidance on how best to handle the story.

   Not that that would be useful or anything. But I guess they SHOULD have waited because now Malkin the Sage and corkie the Wise and Powerful have deemed them !gasp! COMPLICIT!!! simply for doing what reporters are supposed to do.

   Enough of this topic. Obviously you have the same irrational bone to pick with the Times as Michelle. I will leave you alone to stew with it.

3. #103
   On July 27th, 2010 at 11:26 am, corkie said:

   On July 27th, 2010 at 10:45 am, chapoutier said:

   They were not, however.

   Yes, they were.

   That wasn’t all, or else you would not have spent multiple posts coming up with inane (sorry–brilliant, my bad) analogies in an attempt to argue with us.

   Yes, that was all. My brilliant analogies were needed because you were attempting to argue with me.

   I was talking about the public ignoring it once Wikileaks went live with it, which exactly what you were advocating for when you endorsed the idea of the media totally ignoring the leaks

   It’s absolutely absurd for you to suggest that “the public” is completely incapable of researching information unless the media reports on it. I’ve never claimed that the public should willfully ignore anything.

   But I guess they SHOULD have waited because now Malkin the Sage and corkie the Wise and Powerful have deemed them !gasp! COMPLICIT!!!….

   The NYT should not have been complicit in this leak. Deem me wise and powerful for stating that if you wish.

   simply for doing what reporters are supposed to do.

   Yes, reporters are supposed to encourage, and be complicit in, leaks of information or material that the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause “serious damage” to the national security while trivializing the fact that the classification only suggests “serious damage” as opposed to “exceptionally grave damage.”

   Yes, that’s what reporters are supposed to do.

4. #104
   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:21 pm, Yashmak said:

   Nowhere did I suggest that you suggested that.

   I clearly stated that your point could be used as an over justification for the leak.

   – corkie

   By that logic, just about any point made by anyone EVER is “stupid”, because it could be interpreted by some other as something different than was actually said.

5. #105
   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:34 pm, chapoutier said:

   By that logic, just about any point made by anyone EVER is “stupid”, because it could be interpreted by some other as something different than was actually said.

   EXACTLY, Yash. Note he specifically said your point was stupid. He did not say that people could misinterpret your point, (which I am still not clear if he agrees with or disagrees despite his “brilliant” analogies) in stupid ways.

   For someone that claims to be such a brilliant wordsmith and precise thinker, that is a pretty fundamental mistake. Which is why I am convinced he didn’t make it and is being disingenuos now.

6. #106
   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:44 pm, corkie said:

   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:21 pm, Yashmak said:

   By that logic, just about any point made by anyone EVER is “stupid”, because it could be interpreted by some other as something different than was actually said.

   That’s not the same logic at all.

   I didn’t say that someone could interpret your point to mean something different than was actually said.

   I very clearly stated that your point could be used as an overall justification for the leak. Directly used without interpreting something different than what you actually said.

7. #107
   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:45 pm, corkie said:

   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:34 pm, chapoutier said:

   He did not say that people could misinterpret your point,

   EXACTLY!!!!!!

8. #108
   On July 27th, 2010 at 12:55 pm, corkie said:

   I obviously didn’t explain my brilliant analogy well enough to some of you.

   Let’s pretend Yashmak said, “One one hand it’s bad that Robert murdered someone to avenge the theft of his car, but on the other hand a thief is now dead which is a good thing.”

   I’d be fully justified in telling Yashmak that her point was stupid since it could be used to justify vigilantism.

   That doesn’t mean ANY of the following:

   1. That I disagree that “some good” came from the vigilantism.

   2. That I disagree that it’s good that a thief is now dead.

   3. That I’m accusing Yashmak of approving of vigilantism.

   4. That I’m saying that Yashmak’s statement was stupid because it could be misinterpreted to mean anything different than was was meant by Yashmak.

9. #109
   On July 27th, 2010 at 1:00 pm, chapoutier said:

   Forget it, Yash. He’s just shucking and jiving at this point.

10. #110
    On July 27th, 2010 at 1:03 pm, chapoutier said:

    I’d be fully justified in telling Yashmak that her point was stupid since it could be used to justify vigilantism.

    No. You would be justified in calling stupid the person that felt that justified vigilantism.

    It is a very silly thing to call a statement in which all the premises are both correct and reasonable “stupid” based on external factors entirely out of control of the original speaker.

11. #111
    On July 27th, 2010 at 1:10 pm, corkie said:

    On July 27th, 2010 at 1:03 pm, chapoutier said:

    You would be justified in calling stupid the person that felt that justified vigilantism.

    No. It’s stupid to make comments that can be used by others to argue in favor of something you’re against.

12. #112
    On July 27th, 2010 at 1:54 pm, Yashmak said:

    That’s not the same logic at all.

    I didn’t say that someone could interpret your point to mean something different than was actually said.

    – corkie

    You could find work on Obama’s media spin-control team.

13. #113
    On July 27th, 2010 at 2:54 pm, corkie said:

    On July 27th, 2010 at 1:54 pm, Yashmak said:

    You could find work on Obama’s media spin-control team.

    I’m not spinning anything. I’m repeating exactly what I originally stated over and over.

14. #114
    On July 27th, 2010 at 4:34 pm, corkie said:

    The Times should be proud of itself for helping Wikileaks attempt to raise it’s profile.

15. #115
    On July 27th, 2010 at 5:06 pm, chapoutier said:

    I think I finally gat it, Yash. corkie was clearly saying that if a vigilante kills your life savings, you should pick up the quarter. However, you should never speak about the quarter or even acknowledge that such a thing as a quarter even exists. Otherwise people will think that it is okay to take the law, and quarters you find in the gutter, into your own hands.

    Really, I actually feel quite silly for not understanding something so self evident.

16. #116
    On July 27th, 2010 at 5:30 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    On July 26th, 2010 at 2:33 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    Remember: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    I’m with you.

17. #117
    On July 27th, 2010 at 6:09 pm, Yashmak said:

    However, you should never speak about the quarter or even acknowledge that such a thing as a quarter even exists. Otherwise people will think that it is okay to take the law, and quarters you find in the gutter, into your own hands.

    -chap

    Apparently, they will also claim that they never meant/said any such thing.

18. #118
    On July 27th, 2010 at 8:28 pm, corkie said:

    If they’re like me, then they will absolutely deny saying anything that they didn’t say.

    It’s not their fault if their audience is too stupid or willfully obtuse to understand.

19. #119
    On July 27th, 2010 at 9:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    Shhhh, corkie…

    You’ve already said too much. Now they will know you have The Quarter and will be coming for your life savings.

20. #120
    On July 28th, 2010 at 4:32 am, corkie said:

    On July 27th, 2010 at 9:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    Shhhh, corkie…

    You’ve already said too much. Now they will know you have The Quarter and will be coming for your life savings.

    This makes as much sense as everything else you’ve written in this thread.