When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "Is George W. a "Dry Drunk"?".
RE: Katherine van Wormer's useful insights
(#12237)
by NYGuy on May 18, 2003 at 9:54 AM
by NYGuy on May 18, 2003 at 9:54 AM
KW's final comment says it all.
If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as "the pathology in the politics." One day, perhaps, they will."
In my opinion this was not an honest critique based on true science but a cute way of "Bush basing". It is similiar in many ways to what others have done on this link. They start with some simplistic idea to base their arguement on and then go on with their "Bush basing". Transparent and an insult to all the readers on this site. There is no objection to putting ones view forward, but don't try to conceal it as a legimately based research effort. Using distant diagnosis, it my opinion that KW must be proud of what she has presented. But, as has been seen on this thread, no one else does.
If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as "the pathology in the politics." One day, perhaps, they will."
In my opinion this was not an honest critique based on true science but a cute way of "Bush basing". It is similiar in many ways to what others have done on this link. They start with some simplistic idea to base their arguement on and then go on with their "Bush basing". Transparent and an insult to all the readers on this site. There is no objection to putting ones view forward, but don't try to conceal it as a legimately based research effort. Using distant diagnosis, it my opinion that KW must be proud of what she has presented. But, as has been seen on this thread, no one else does.
When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "Is George W. a "Dry Drunk"?".
by Fred Ferrell on May 18, 2003 at 2:46 AM