hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: election - delete if not interested

Hi Beth (and fellow hosta-open political pundits),
If you were my debate partner, Beth, and we we were on the SAME team (scary
thought, but stay with me for a moment), one of the first things about which we
would have a discussion following our very first resounding defeat in
competition, is the need to rebut a person's statement with something relavent
to the statement.  I know that this forum is not an "official debate
forum"--there are no "rules" and no one has authority in requesting that a
particular canon of discussion etiquette be observed.  However, I am going to
step out in faith and trust that you might concur on a modus operandi--the
manner in which a discussion thread is continued or a new one gets
started--should be somewhat uniform.

For example, what does the President's trip to Vietnam have to do with Kate's
statement about the National Partnership Council?  I could see opening another
thread to state your new point, rather than replying to the point that she
raises, but I am at a loss to determine how this advances the dialogue when you
choose to avoid replying to the issue she raises.  Instead of accomplishing
monologue to dialogue, what occurs is monologue to monologue--there is no
thread that ties the issues to one another.  If that is your intent, that you
have accomplished it below.

If we start an investigation of an issue, and we want to maintain the "thread"
of logic, it is important that the thread be connected in some manner to the
previous statement.  I must confess that on this occasion, and a few occasions
in the past, I am having difficulty following the thread...

I love a good mental joust.  Everything about these political discussions
I have thoroughly enjoyed.  And, I agree with Chic that who ultimately wins the
race for the Presidency is probably not as important as ensuring that the
process is fair to all parties.  It also appears that BOTH candidates are quite
adamant in their pursuit of their goal.  However, IF after we start to run our
two horses toward each other, you make a decision that this is not the field on
which you wanted to joust and turn your steed toward another totally different
jousting field, how will we ever succeed in knocking one, or the other, off the

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Lietzow

> Bill Clinton was the first
> > President to form a National Partnership Council which included Labor
> Leaders
> > from all levels of government with the main purpose to make the government
> > work better and cost less,

Beth Arnold wrote:

> With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
> For the story behind the story...
> Tuesday November 21, 2000; 10:28 PM ET
> Prez Spends $65 Million on Vietnam Trip, Marines Go Without
> No president in the history of the union has logged more travel miles and
> spent more money doing it than Bill Clinton. And Clinton's trip to Vietnam
> last week, with its $65 million price tag, was no exception.
> Beth Arnold

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index