At 07:27 03/31/03 -0500, Joe De Ville wrote:
>It is disingenuous, in the extreme, to say that the veto was not used.
Joe:
a) Saying that the veto was not used is a simple statement of fact, given
the definition of "used" as "cast in a vote".
b) You are interpreting "used" as "presented as a possibility or threat to
influence the actions of others." This has some merit, but is pretty
clearly a secondary definition.
c) Using the primary, or direct, definition is hardly disingenuous.
d) Please explain your use of "extreme". The only thing I see that is
"extreme" is your use of the word itself.
Seriously, since this whole debate is about opinions, wouldn't it be more
civil, and thereby perhaps more effective, to simply say, "IMO the veto was
used, in the sense that the threat of a veto was employed to influence
actions of other countries."
Then we empty-headed liberals wouldn't find it so easy to pick your logic
apart. <g>
Dan Covill
©2003 Dan Covill |
