Just in case the exchange is tough to read from the screen capture I'll transcribe it minus the wisdom of "Chief":
Bryan: Huh. Kathy didn't answer the question again. The start of a pattern?
Kathy: I answered the question, Bryan. You just don't like the answer.
Bryan: Uh, Kathy, you conspicuously avoided the subject of journalism and whether or not it was your intent to support Hinderaker’s argument. Instead you tried to take issue with whether or not pictures showing progress in Iraq, such as the ones I suggested, would show Iraq as something other than hell.
There’s nothing to like or dislike about your “answer” unless it’s the relative distance from the questions that were asked.
Kathy: Bryan, why would I address the question of whether or not it was my intent to support Hinderaker’s argument? That is *your* spin on what I wrote, *your* way of justifying your position. It’s not something I need to respond to, as if it were a serious point.
Bryan: So since it’s something you didn’t need to respond to were you just being funny when you said you answered the question?
Great stuff, Kathy. I look forward to more.
2 comments:
Trying to argue with you is an exercise in futility. Indefatigable logic. Kathy never had a chance. Like a cat with a mouse, you are.
In the best sense of argument (that of throwing ideas together to see what is true and what is not), arguing with me is not futile.
I'd have been delighted if Kathy had put forward good arguments to begin with. If Kathy was a mouse in this instance, her argument made her as much. The challenging argument is much more fun and much more stimulating. But the bad argument cannot be wholly ignored because leaving it unchallenged encourages false belief.
Post a Comment