Re: NYT Op-Ed by Paul Krugman

On Feb 13, 9:34=A0am, M C Hamster <davol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:32:25 +0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
>
>
>
>
>
> <opusthepenguin+use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >bill van (bill...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
>
> >> In article <Xns9A42684F733C7opusthepenguinnet...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> =A0Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>> Jerry Bauer (use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
>
> >>> > But, why would they be obvious to them and not to me? =A0What is
> >>> > there about "obvious" that allows that?
>
> >>> That's a puzzle, ain't it? To some people O.J. was obviously
> >>> guilty. To others he was obviously framed. There are many issues
> >>> like that.
>
> >> Yeah, but wasn't he a fine football player?
>
> >> And wasn't Bill a fine president? Yeah, he was a philanderer and
> >> there were financial shenanigans, but at least he didn't kill
> >> anybody.
>
> >>> I can accept that my rhetoric is perceived as irrational. It may
> >>> even be so. I wouldn't be able to judge that, I suppose. But if
> >>> you think I'm being deceptive, please put it down to the
> >>> irrationality instead.
>
> >> Well, you seem to understand that there is no hard evidence for
> >> some of your views, and yet you hold them. I can't put that down
> >> to irrationality; I know you to be generally rational, and you're
> >> clearly not out of your mind in this discussion.
>
> >> What does that leave?
>
> >It leaves this. That as the events unfolded, we all made our
> >*****sments and drew our conclusions. Now we're not really discussing
> >the matter. We're just talking about those *****sments and
> >conclusions. To really discuss it, we'd have to go back, day by day,
> >to the actual events and see where the interpretations diverged and
> >why.
>
> All we need is a summary, really.


"**** happens"

Mary