Peter_Puget

I wasn't questioning anyone's ethics I just wasn't buying that your argument was a full or at least satisfying explanation.

The cost of pro then doesn't determine ethics..... I know people in Eastern Europe who made their own gear out of scrap metal. I have made stoppers out of scrap metal. I made home made pitons in the early 70s.Several friends have. In the early 80s I bought a bunch of home made cams. I wonder why this pattern sn't followed.

Crackers - Have you considered the purchasing power in post ww2 eastern europe and sandstone ethics.

Check out this bit of history=> Post #1!

This guy!

That's the name I was thinkig of...earlier all I coudl think of was Lena's Layback which it isn't.

Is that at Murrin Park?

Yikes no clue on any of them. I won't even tell ya the only thing that comes to mind for OW first pic.

Argh! I guess that was too easy.....

Route #1 Route#2

So strong he chips holds with his grip! Note chipped hold to the left.

Just to make sure I am remembering the right route: OM starts up with a undercling heading up and left to a difficult mantle – kinda funky pro. Is that right GS?

Anyone climb this route? What did you think of it?

Two things: In Matt's original post the definition is cleary labeled as being from Websters. In my quote of his post this attribution is plainly shown. So does it seem reasonable to claim that in using the term "your" in my last post I was at all suggesting that his definition was deficient or his alone? No! I encouraged him to use that very definition to compare to the definiton of Cherry Picking that I provided. I wil leave it to readers to decide for themselves why he wrote the sentence in red. Could it have anything to do with misdirection? An "appearent" correction of a error on my part? Could this be a manipulative tactic? In the second paragraph the distinction between cherry picking and telling a lie is suddenly accepted yet a few posts above we saw written: Which shall it be: manipulative cc.com poster or ten year old trying to get out of something?

Oh matt you indeed a "Cherry Picker" Check this out: link And by the way what's up with all the insults? Now for all your talk about staying on topic and "dodges" I am struck by your continued slip into the cry of The tubes the tubes the tubes! A quick review of your posts Bush threads shows how this cry comes out at every concievable opportunity - especially when your current argument has sunk - clearly there is a difference between cherry picking and telling a lie. In this thread I am talking of cherry picking. Please compare and contrast to your definition of "lie". Both "Cherry Picking" and telling a lie can be practiced separately or teamed up together. I know that this can be confusing but referring to the definitions will help you to make the distinction. Bookmark this page!

• Denial: "I did not chip." • Anger: "How dare you accuse me of chipping that hold." • Bargaining: "You’re a f@$#ing chipper!" • Justification: "It's a shitty crag." • Acceptance: "People climb it, who cares.”

I just can't force myself to click on your Uranus thread. After the penis.....

Everyone is workin' too hard to save up for their GRILLS!

Mattp - R-E-L-A-X. Again you simply misunderstand. Perhaps you are not reading what has been written. (like in the USA Today article) In any event please stay on subject. Which until you brought it up hasn't been if Bush told lies in the buildup of the war.

It was a self-defense argument but not as commonly understood by the term. The US action was preemptive. It went against what was commonly accepted as legal self-defense under international law. The US and Australia too made no bones about this. Here is where the word imminent is important. Go back an reread my posts I the various “imminent” threads (and our PMs) Of course there were other arguments made as well. PP

Matt - I am not saying you are cherry picking. I am saying you are using Bush's cherry picking as evidence that he is telling untruths. I believe this should be relatively clear in my repsonse to Chuck. PP

1) Thanks but I wasn't looking for a dodge. better that you simply respond directly to my questions. 2) Didn't I just respond to a bunch of Chuck's questions? Aren't "We" (Peter and Matt) discussing the questions in our posts? Certainly I have asked some questions. So to summarize: in your first post you make an assertion based on not reading a two paragrph article. In your second post you make a series of assertions you cannot support. In your last post you slam me for not addressing the issues at hand. See red above!

Quote from post above: Note to Mattp: Please show where I "manipulat[e] debate of the "facts"" and "sidetracking of any discussion away from the issue" and you "noted it was unclear what that press release actually said" I did change the or's to and's.

Chuck- In a sense this goes back to our “imminent” argument. Cherry picking data and advocating a position is used everyday in many situations. (eg minimum wage debates) It is in fact a necessary part of virtually any governing process. You and Matt seem to be using is as prima facie evidence of unethical/immoral behavior o the part of this administration. As I repeatedly stated in our earlier discussions, I took the administration to be arguing that its position was that Iraq was not an imminent threat and in that sense wasn’t an act of self defense as commonly understood. So the situation you describe in your second paragraph is closer to what I believe actually happened than the self-defense model I think you are suggesting. In general would like the public motivations to be similar to the private motivations however I do think it would be easy to create hypothetical scenarios in which we would both think out and out lying would be acceptable. As far as Congress I am not quite sure what you are asking. Does Congress ever have 100% the same access to information that the President does? I am sure that they had enough info to make an informed decision.