Wednesday, August 25, 2004
The Search for Comprehension
Dear "Editorial 'We'",
It was with great relief that I began reading your editorial entitled "Bush an accomplice on ads". Finally, I thought, I will read something that will give me a clear understanding of the issue of the recent campaign advertisements. After all, I reasoned, it is 2004, and what can be more important than Vietnam?
I regret to state, however, that my understanding of the issue has been to no degree greater elucidated. Rather, I have some more questions. Perhaps you can help.
You write: "...the ads that defame Kerry are especially repellent, because they are almost certainly based on out-and-out lies, not fact." I found this a curious statement. How can these ads be "almost certainly" anything? In the statement, "I certainly want hamburgers," the word "certainly" reinforces and clarifies the meaning. In the statement, "I am almost to Ohio," the word "almost" suggests a closeness, yet clearly denies one is actually in Ohio. I do not think one can "almost certainly" want hamburgers. I do not think one can "almost certainly" be in Ohio.
Perhaps this business of "almost certainly" could be better explained if the actual lies the editorial refers to were presented for examination. I imagine that I am not the only reader interested in the specifics of this case. Again, how can we leave undiscussed, this issue of Vietnam, in the year 2004?
This leads me to my next point. The lies you refer to are not merely lies. You describe them as "out-and-out" lies. What is an "out-and-out" lie? Based on your sentence, which concludes with the words, "not fact", I can only assume that "out-and-out" lies carry no more truth than regular lies. Are these "out-and-out" lies more important than regular lies? Are they farther away? Are they lies told outside? Are there "in-and-in" lies for lies told inside?
Please -- Martin, O., Ernst-Ulrich, Richard, Jerry, Gregory, Barbara, Stuart, Katie -- help me understand. I think if you could just clear up these minor points, I may gain my long-sought comprehension.
Well . . . I'm almost certain of it.
And that's no out-and-out lie.
Sincerely with best regards,
It was with great relief that I began reading your editorial entitled "Bush an accomplice on ads". Finally, I thought, I will read something that will give me a clear understanding of the issue of the recent campaign advertisements. After all, I reasoned, it is 2004, and what can be more important than Vietnam?
I regret to state, however, that my understanding of the issue has been to no degree greater elucidated. Rather, I have some more questions. Perhaps you can help.
You write: "...the ads that defame Kerry are especially repellent, because they are almost certainly based on out-and-out lies, not fact." I found this a curious statement. How can these ads be "almost certainly" anything? In the statement, "I certainly want hamburgers," the word "certainly" reinforces and clarifies the meaning. In the statement, "I am almost to Ohio," the word "almost" suggests a closeness, yet clearly denies one is actually in Ohio. I do not think one can "almost certainly" want hamburgers. I do not think one can "almost certainly" be in Ohio.
Perhaps this business of "almost certainly" could be better explained if the actual lies the editorial refers to were presented for examination. I imagine that I am not the only reader interested in the specifics of this case. Again, how can we leave undiscussed, this issue of Vietnam, in the year 2004?
This leads me to my next point. The lies you refer to are not merely lies. You describe them as "out-and-out" lies. What is an "out-and-out" lie? Based on your sentence, which concludes with the words, "not fact", I can only assume that "out-and-out" lies carry no more truth than regular lies. Are these "out-and-out" lies more important than regular lies? Are they farther away? Are they lies told outside? Are there "in-and-in" lies for lies told inside?
Please -- Martin, O., Ernst-Ulrich, Richard, Jerry, Gregory, Barbara, Stuart, Katie -- help me understand. I think if you could just clear up these minor points, I may gain my long-sought comprehension.
Well . . . I'm almost certain of it.
And that's no out-and-out lie.
Sincerely with best regards,
