Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hank and Sidd are right.
I can't fucking believe you've been arguing with Spanky for so long about whether something is a "cite." A bullshit cite is rarely cited and proves nothing.
Spanky's argument was that Hersh is a bullshit cite. I think you knew this. Agree or not, but don't bust his ass on bullshit.
After all, this is a Very Important Board reserved for Substantive Discussion.
S_A_M
|
\
Borrow some of wonk's lube, will you? I was having a conversation with club about Iranian nuclear facilities, and made the non-controversial observation that they will be hard to bomb. I further observed that the Pentagon was looking at how to using nuclear weapons. Spanky asked for a cite, so I linked to a Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker -- not a bullshit author, not a bullshit periodical -- discussing the Pentagon pushback. Spanky then got all pedantic about the meaning of the word "cite."
The pedantry was his. I apologize for responding in kind. But who was busting whose ass?
If Spanky thinks Hersh is not credible, he should be able to come up with some reason other than that he relies on anonymous sources. He hasn't yet. And it's not like he's ever suggested that Hersh was wrong about this.
eta: Do you doubt the truth of what Hersh reported?
