This smiley could mean many things in the context. I could mean that your
are happy stepping on Mr. Quayle. I could mean that you are happy being
sarcastic or it could mean that you are poking fun at the whole thing.
>
> Here's something for you to think about a little. Above you give
> a "little fact". This little fact is practically meaningless unless
> interpreted in some more general context
Did we missed the forrest ? Problably all of those trees in front didn't
allow us to see it.
The context was the quotation block that preceded the comment.
> i.e. according to
> some "theory". For example, you may have a theory that the
> media did not report this fact because it was trying to make
> Quayle look like an idiot. But this can't be because if we have
> facts we don't need theories, right?
>
Well, do we really need to prove the reality of bias media reporting on Mr.
Quayle ? Only the 'brain deads' as somebody wrote, will need proof of this
'theory' (Which is not theory at all but an actual known series of events).
Lets see if I remember correctly, if a series or set of facts relating to
one another could be analyzed a theory could be created. Or if one can
construct a relation of phenomena as it is known and it is invariable under
given conditions, or better yet, if the relation of facts with one another
can be proved to hold between logical (or mathematical) expressions, we
have a law.
And if we have a law, then we don't need theory for the same set of related
facts.
Right. We don't need theories.
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington
> >And I truly hope that Mr. Harper missed on the same spelling in purpose.
> >God forbid we'll be doing the same mistake.
> >
>
> Yes, of course it was intentional.
>
I thought so. ;-)