Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["David R. Matusiak" <dave AT matusiak.org>]

i think you are both right -- in your own respective ways.

now, correct me if i'm wrong, but i feel that Eric is talking about 
"perceptions" and Steven is talking about "facts".  and i would argue 
that neither can be discounted.

it is "generally perceived" that the Bushies are 
ultra-mega-billionaires with mad crazy connections in the oil industry. 
probably less commonly perceived is the notion that America loves us 
some oil. (i wish everyone in the USA was able to see this and then 
adjust their own consumption accordingly).

however, one cannot deny the staying power of facts in argument and 
they must be honored. it is nice to know all the intimate details of 
past goings-on, but what relevance can be transferred in light of 
"common (mis)perception"?

this is why i think both are important. for the most part, we should 
attempt to use facts to inform opinions. and maybe someday down the 
road we can make headway on this whole perception thing.  ;)

thanks again for the debate. hopefully you'll stick around for the next 
wave.

On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 07:49  PM, Steven Champeon wrote:

> on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:10:29PM -0700, Eric Wolfram wrote:
> > At 03:36 PM 10/10/02 -0700, you wrote:
> > > It's East Coast vs. West Coast in this rock-em sock-em dustup.  Could
> > > someone remind me what the original argument was about?
> >
> > LOL. Since I'm the n00b on this great list, and out of respect for 
> > all the
> > good people who read this list, I graciously admit defeat. Mr. 
> > Champion is
> > obviously "true to his name" and I humble agree to his ample 
> > implications.
> > Specifically: The ruling Bush family isn't obscenely richer then 
> > almost
> > anyone on this planet, they don't make any money in the oil business, 
> > and
> > America is not dependent on oil at all.
>
> I don't know who this Mr. Champion is, but he sure has a lot of funny
> ideas. Fortunately, I don't actually subscribe to any of them, as you
> can clearly see from my posts on the matter, if you'll take the time
> to actually read them :)
>
> Anyway. I'm done with this thread. It's obvious that asking for some
> evidence is not only viewed as a ridiculous ploy, but when evidence is
> offered, it's decried as an attempt to manipulate the flow of the
> conversation. Quel Horreur!
>
> Lest Earick's misrepresentations fool anyone here, I'd just like to
> say that Mr. Wolfrum missed the point of what I was trying to say,
> which was merely that his attempts to "follow the money" didn't make
> any sense to me, and that painting a picture for rhetoric's sake is
> fun, but not very useful if you're actually curious about the real
> world and the way it works.
>
> Of course Bush Pere made money consulting for oil companies, and of
> course we're dependent on oil. But to single him or his bumbling
> progeny out as some kind of Star Chamber ruling class is just funny
> at best. If they were that rich, the President would be working for
> /them/. Sadly, they're just cogs in a far wider machine.