[quote]Otep wrote:
It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.[/quote]
Ya know, I may shock some people with this, but I always thought BC got a raw PR deal outta that statement. I saw it when his testimony was first broadcast and the truth is, in the context he was talking about there? The answer to whether he lied to his aides actually DID depend on what the meaning of the word “is” was. Was it legal hair splitting? Of course, but it wasn’t the over the top ridiculous piece of wordsmanship it was made out to be.
[quote]Otep wrote:
It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.[/quote]
Ya know, I may shock some people with this, but I always thought BC got a raw PR deal outta that statement. I saw it when his testimony was first broadcast and the truth is, in the context he was talking about there? The answer to whether he lied to his aides actually DID depend on what the meaning of the word “is” was. Was it legal hair splitting? Of course, but it wasn’t the over the top ridiculous piece of wordsmanship it was made out to be.[/quote]
I guess so - but it fit in all-too-well with the rage for “Deconstructionism” wrt language at the time. It just seemed like an insanely, Derrida-ish cop-out.
This thread is full of Lol. And Win. Extra points to katz for the derrida reference.
Also, to those unfamiliar with /b/ do NOT GO IN THERE. What is seen cannot be unseen. I went there once, and only once, because I was foolishly curious and I came perilously close to being killed just like the curious cat. Damn. Is all I can say about that place. It’s like being inside a Salvador Dali painting while on a bad trip of LSD and crystal meth simultaneously.
This is the group anonymous. They helped expose scientology. I dont know wjy the Oregon Tea party would use that because the whole idea of anonymous is to hide your idenity. I do not know what 4chan is.
[quote]Otep wrote:
It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.[/quote]
Ya know, I may shock some people with this, but I always thought BC got a raw PR deal outta that statement. I saw it when his testimony was first broadcast and the truth is, in the context he was talking about there? The answer to whether he lied to his aides actually DID depend on what the meaning of the word “is” was. Was it legal hair splitting? Of course, but it wasn’t the over the top ridiculous piece of wordsmanship it was made out to be.[/quote]
I guess so - but it fit in all-too-well with the rage for “Deconstructionism” wrt language at the time. It just seemed like an insanely, Derrida-ish cop-out. [/quote]