OT: Bush castrates Intelligence Oversight Committee

[still just me]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...president_weakens_espionage_oversight/?page=2

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/14/president_wea
> kens_espionage_oversight/?page=2

Hey, the Republican Party believes in a strong Presidecy which does not
have to defer to Congress on any issue and can arrogate to itself powers
not authorized in the Constitution and write exceptions to any laws that
might be inconvenient.

Unless the President is a Democrat. Just wait for the squalling if
President Obama or President Hillary tries to operate as arrogantly as
Bush/Cheney/Rove.

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:37:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Hey, the Republican Party believes in a strong Presidecy which does not
>have to defer to Congress on any issue and can arrogate to itself powers
>not authorized in the Constitution and write exceptions to any laws that
>might be inconvenient.
>
>Unless the President is a Democrat. Just wait for the squalling if
>President Obama or President Hillary tries to operate as arrogantly as
>Bush/Cheney/Rove.


To be fair to Bush, this particular commission was originally
appointed by Ford. He created it only to avoid an even stronger
commission being appointed by Congress at the time, but it was within
GWB's legal rights to change it. (That's obviously a rarity for him).
But, at the same time, he's made it useless. They have no authority
and no way to report to anyone that cares. He might have just as well
dissolved it - but gutting it lets him kill it and few people notice.

You are right about the last part - look at what they did to Clinton
about a blow job and what Bush has gotten away with. However, I blame
the Democrats for that - they are not doing their job in pursuing the
numerous violations of the law, and just plain outrageous behavior
like this, by Bush.

 

[Woland99]

On Mar 15, 1:37 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/14/pres...
> > kens_espionage_oversight/?page=2
>
> Hey, the Republican Party believes in a strong Presidecy which does not
> have to defer to Congress on any issue and can arrogate to itself powers
> not authorized in the Constitution and write exceptions to any laws that
> might be inconvenient.
>
> Unless the President is a Democrat. Just wait for the squalling if
> President Obama or President Hillary tries to operate as arrogantly as
> Bush/Cheney/Rove.

Problem with domestic spying without oversight is that undermines
democracy. There is simply too much temptation to use it on political
opposition - making democratic elections a complete fiction.
Watergate was nothing compared with it. And please do not tell me
that "it will only be used against terrorists" - that is just like
that favourite argument about ties between Saddam and alQaeda:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/13/iraq.usa
"A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time
yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida,
undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with
Iraq."

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:42:36 -0700 (PDT), Woland99
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Problem with domestic spying without oversight is that undermines
>democracy. There is simply too much temptation to use it on political
>opposition - making democratic elections a complete fiction.
>Watergate was nothing compared with it.
> And please do not tell me
>that "it will only be used against terrorists" -

Agreed. Yet the number of people I run into that believe that there is
some way of determining guilt before even doing surveillance, and that
it will all be above board with no oversight, is astounding. People in
this country are just plain stupid. Look at the number who buy into
not only retroactive immunity for the telecomms that violated our
rights, but continuing immunity so that the gov't can continue to
violate our rights.

The Bush-ians stand up and yell how they can't protect us without
violating our Constitutional rights. Somehow I think they are unclear
on the principles that created this country. This is the very sort of
thing that was core to the American Revolution. Yet there are millions
of dopes who go along for the ride as the Bush-ians blast out their
message over and over. It's the old "tell a lie long enough and make
it the truth".

> that is just like
>that favourite argument about ties between Saddam and alQaeda:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/13/iraq.usa
>"A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time
>yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida,
>undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with
>Iraq."

Duh. Same as above. Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

 

[vey]

Woland99 wrote:
>And please do not tell me
> that "it will only be used against terrorists" -

I like it's follow up, "Trust us, we know what we are doing." and "We do
not torture."

 

[John Thompson]

On 2008-03-17, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Bush-ians stand up and yell how they can't protect us without
> violating our Constitutional rights. Somehow I think they are unclear
> on the principles that created this country.

Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g. the
UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with terrorism for
much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so without
compromising their citizens' rights.

--

John ([email protected])

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Thompson wrote:

> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
> without compromising their citizens' rights.

Do a little research. HTH

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>> without compromising their citizens' rights.

> Do a little research. HTH

Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
make the concept a "fact" need be explained.

"the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.

Jobst Brandt

 

[A Muzi]

>> John Thompson:
>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.

> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Do a little research. HTH

[email protected] wrote:
> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.


Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
that every word tell.

Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
-snip table-
In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
every sentence in which it occurs.
[italics original]

I'm not exceptional at composition either.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:02:22 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>> John Thompson:
>>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.
>
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Do a little research. HTH
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
>> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
>> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
>> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
>> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
>> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.
>
>
>Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':
>
>Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
>words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
>or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
>that every word tell.
>
>Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
>-snip table-
> In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
>every sentence in which it occurs.
>[italics original]
>
>I'm not exceptional at composition either.

Dear Andrew,

The fact that some posters have ended up quibbling over phrases that
they pretend to find offensive only exposes their lack of anything
relevant to say about the subject.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[A Muzi]

>>>> John Thompson:
>>>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>>>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>>>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>>>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.

>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Do a little research. HTH

>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
>>> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
>>> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
>>> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
>>> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
>>> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.

> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':
>> "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
>> words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>> drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>> parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
>> or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
>> that every word tell.
>> Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
>> -snip table-
>> In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
>> every sentence in which it occurs."
>> [italics original]
>> I'm not exceptional at composition either.

[email protected] wrote:
> The fact that some posters have ended up quibbling over phrases that
> they pretend to find offensive only exposes their lack of anything
> relevant to say about the subject.

The subject is a tarbaby I'm happy to not engage here. But, hey, a
citation for an off-topic comment to an off-topic thread? Sure!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:02:22 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>> John Thompson:
> >>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
> >>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
> >>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
> >>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.
> >
> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>> Do a little research. HTH
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
> >> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
> >> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
> >> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
> >> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
> >> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.
> >
> >
> >Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':
> >
> >Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
> >words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
> >drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
> >parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
> >or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
> >that every word tell.
> >
> >Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
> >-snip table-
> > In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
> >every sentence in which it occurs.
> >[italics original]
> >
> >I'm not exceptional at composition either.
>
> The fact that some posters have ended up quibbling over phrases that
> they pretend to find offensive only exposes their lack of anything
> relevant to say about the subject.

What Jobst said is relevant, clear, and makes a strong argument.
That you choose to ignore his argument it does not make it go away.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:56:26 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>>> John Thompson:
>>>>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>>>>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>>>>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>>>>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.
>
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> Do a little research. HTH
>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
>>>> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
>>>> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
>>>> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
>>>> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
>>>> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.
>
>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':
>>> "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
>>> words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>>> drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>>> parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
>>> or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
>>> that every word tell.
>>> Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
>>> -snip table-
>>> In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
>>> every sentence in which it occurs."
>>> [italics original]
>>> I'm not exceptional at composition either.
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> The fact that some posters have ended up quibbling over phrases that
>> they pretend to find offensive only exposes their lack of anything
>> relevant to say about the subject.
>
>The subject is a tarbaby I'm happy to not engage here. But, hey, a
>citation for an off-topic comment to an off-topic thread? Sure!

Dear Andrew,

Hopefully, the vast majority of us will pardon you for splitting that
infinitive.



The reason that Strunk & White is so short is that the book doesn't
waste any time telling you how to write an essay.

Instead, it urges endless revisions at the sentence level, such as
removing "The reason that" and "so" and "any" in the sentence above.

The book never raises its head to address anything above the sentence
level. (How to write an essay is a separate subject.)

Unfortunately, some people fall in love with revising sentences
because rewriting gives them a pleasant sense of superiority, and it's
easy to do--any sentence can be rephrased endlessly.

Of course, you can rewrite your own sentences without irritating
anyone, but revision can become an obnoxious obsession.

For example, some posters on RBT fondly imagine that they are English
teachers and that other posters are their students, whose style and
sentences must be corrected.

In extreme cases, a quibbler may even re-write his own book, sentence
by sentence, without much improvement--even unto a third edition.

In contrast, RBT's best writer is Chalo Colina.

Chalo writes clear sentences, and his posts are free from typos,
spelling mistakes, bad punctuation, and poor grammar.

But that's not what makes Chalo's posts so good.

Chalo's secret is his focus. He gives his main point the most space in
his post. He doesn't wander. When he's made his point, he quits.

(Unlike some of us, who can't resist parenthetic digressions and
trivia.)

A post from Chalo is an editor's dream. Whether you agree with him or
not, Chalo has a point and he makes it without getting sidetracked.

A quibbler will be more interested in removing the "or not" in the
previous sentence than in what the sentence says.

Who can imagine Chalo citing Strunk & White to justify nagging another
poster to omit those two words?

If Chalo disagrees with you, he doesn't waste much time quibbling
about how you expressed yourself. He addresses your point, which is
probably the best style.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:
{snip}

> That you choose to ignore his argument it does not make it go away.

Your sentence it is faulty.

BS

 

[A Muzi]

>>>>>> John Thompson:
>>>>>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>>>>>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>>>>>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>>>>>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.

>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> Do a little research. HTH

>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
>>>>> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
>>>>> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
>>>>> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
>>>>> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
>>>>> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.

>>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':
>>>> "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
>>>> words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>>>> drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>>>> parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
>>>> or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
>>>> that every word tell.
>>>> Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
>>>> -snip table-
>>>> In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
>>>> every sentence in which it occurs."
>>>> [italics original]
>>>> I'm not exceptional at composition either.

>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> The fact that some posters have ended up quibbling over phrases that
>>> they pretend to find offensive only exposes their lack of anything
>>> relevant to say about the subject.

> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The subject is a tarbaby I'm happy to not engage here. But, hey, a
>> citation for an off-topic comment to an off-topic thread? Sure!

[email protected] wrote:
> Hopefully, the vast majority of us will pardon you for splitting that
> infinitive.
>
>
>
> The reason that Strunk & White is so short is that the book doesn't
> waste any time telling you how to write an essay.
>
> Instead, it urges endless revisions at the sentence level, such as
> removing "The reason that" and "so" and "any" in the sentence above.
>
> The book never raises its head to address anything above the sentence
> level. (How to write an essay is a separate subject.)
>
> Unfortunately, some people fall in love with revising sentences
> because rewriting gives them a pleasant sense of superiority, and it's
> easy to do--any sentence can be rephrased endlessly.
>
> Of course, you can rewrite your own sentences without irritating
> anyone, but revision can become an obnoxious obsession.
>
> For example, some posters on RBT fondly imagine that they are English
> teachers and that other posters are their students, whose style and
> sentences must be corrected.
>
> In extreme cases, a quibbler may even re-write his own book, sentence
> by sentence, without much improvement--even unto a third edition.
>
> In contrast, RBT's best writer is Chalo Colina.
>
> Chalo writes clear sentences, and his posts are free from typos,
> spelling mistakes, bad punctuation, and poor grammar.
>
> But that's not what makes Chalo's posts so good.
>
> Chalo's secret is his focus. He gives his main point the most space in
> his post. He doesn't wander. When he's made his point, he quits.
>
> (Unlike some of us, who can't resist parenthetic digressions and
> trivia.)
>
> A post from Chalo is an editor's dream. Whether you agree with him or
> not, Chalo has a point and he makes it without getting sidetracked.
>
> A quibbler will be more interested in removing the "or not" in the
> previous sentence than in what the sentence says.
>
> Who can imagine Chalo citing Strunk & White to justify nagging another
> poster to omit those two words?
>
> If Chalo disagrees with you, he doesn't waste much time quibbling
> about how you expressed yourself. He addresses your point, which is
> probably the best style.

I'm no expert, and have no particular interest here, but I did recall
that exact phrase in Strunk so I opened it and copied it.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:49:08 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>>>>> John Thompson:
>>>>>>>> Not only that, they ignore the fact that many other countries, e.g.
>>>>>>>> the UK and Germany to mention only two, have been dealing with
>>>>>>>> terrorism for much longer than we have, and yet have managed to do so
>>>>>>>> without compromising their citizens' rights.
>
>>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>> Do a little research. HTH
>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Beware of anyone who uses the phrase "the fact that" to establish some
>>>>>> concept. In English composition, this is known as begging the
>>>>>> question. Instead of the phrase, the circumstances that appear to
>>>>>> make the concept a "fact" need be explained.
>>>>>> "the fact that" belongs in the same trash bin that the other hackneyed
>>>>>> phrases recently mentioned went to their demise for thinking writers.
>
>>>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Indeed, from Strunk, 'Elements of Style':
>>>>> "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
>>>>> words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>>>>> drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>>>>> parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short,
>>>>> or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but
>>>>> that every word tell.
>>>>> Many expressions in common use violate this principle:
>>>>> -snip table-
>>>>> In especial the expression /the fact that/ should be revised out of
>>>>> every sentence in which it occurs."
>>>>> [italics original]
>>>>> I'm not exceptional at composition either.
>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> The fact that some posters have ended up quibbling over phrases that
>>>> they pretend to find offensive only exposes their lack of anything
>>>> relevant to say about the subject.
>
>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The subject is a tarbaby I'm happy to not engage here. But, hey, a
>>> citation for an off-topic comment to an off-topic thread? Sure!
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Hopefully, the vast majority of us will pardon you for splitting that
>> infinitive.
>>
>>
>>
>> The reason that Strunk & White is so short is that the book doesn't
>> waste any time telling you how to write an essay.
>>
>> Instead, it urges endless revisions at the sentence level, such as
>> removing "The reason that" and "so" and "any" in the sentence above.
>>
>> The book never raises its head to address anything above the sentence
>> level. (How to write an essay is a separate subject.)
>>
>> Unfortunately, some people fall in love with revising sentences
>> because rewriting gives them a pleasant sense of superiority, and it's
>> easy to do--any sentence can be rephrased endlessly.
>>
>> Of course, you can rewrite your own sentences without irritating
>> anyone, but revision can become an obnoxious obsession.
>>
>> For example, some posters on RBT fondly imagine that they are English
>> teachers and that other posters are their students, whose style and
>> sentences must be corrected.
>>
>> In extreme cases, a quibbler may even re-write his own book, sentence
>> by sentence, without much improvement--even unto a third edition.
>>
>> In contrast, RBT's best writer is Chalo Colina.
>>
>> Chalo writes clear sentences, and his posts are free from typos,
>> spelling mistakes, bad punctuation, and poor grammar.
>>
>> But that's not what makes Chalo's posts so good.
>>
>> Chalo's secret is his focus. He gives his main point the most space in
>> his post. He doesn't wander. When he's made his point, he quits.
>>
>> (Unlike some of us, who can't resist parenthetic digressions and
>> trivia.)
>>
>> A post from Chalo is an editor's dream. Whether you agree with him or
>> not, Chalo has a point and he makes it without getting sidetracked.
>>
>> A quibbler will be more interested in removing the "or not" in the
>> previous sentence than in what the sentence says.
>>
>> Who can imagine Chalo citing Strunk & White to justify nagging another
>> poster to omit those two words?
>>
>> If Chalo disagrees with you, he doesn't waste much time quibbling
>> about how you expressed yourself. He addresses your point, which is
>> probably the best style.
>
>I'm no expert, and have no particular interest here, but I did recall
>that exact phrase in Strunk so I opened it and copied it.

Dear Andrew,

Yes, the phrase "the fact that" is listed in Strunk & White as the
work of the devil.

Prompted by Jobst's quibble, you looked it up in good faith.

You weren't nagging or quibbling--I confused you with Jobst, and I'm
sorry that I did so.

My point is that it's a fairly silly quibble.

We might as well debate whether "no particular interest" is (according
to Jobst's version of the Strunk & White approach) just as awful an
error as "the fact that," a false distinction that should be edited
out wherever it appears, and an unmistakable sign of muddy thinking
that invalidates everything said by anyone who writes it.

Sheesh!

Neither you nor I would quibble about whether "particular" should be
removed from your post--I'm pointing it out here only to illustrate
how silly such quibbles are. Most people who descend to such nonsense
promptly commit far worse mistakes, starting with attaching such
ridiculous importance to them.

Again, my point is that it's usually a good sign that someone has
nothing to say or is evading the subject when he starts telling other
posters how to re-write their perfectly clear sentences. You weren't
the one who was doing that and I goofed badly by implying that you
were.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

>
> Yes, the phrase "the fact that" is listed in Strunk & White as the
> work of the devil.
>
> Prompted by Jobst's quibble,

Good one!

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> We might as well debate whether "no particular interest" is (according
> to Jobst's version of the Strunk & White approach) just as awful an
> error as "the fact that," a false distinction that should be edited
> out wherever it appears, and an unmistakable sign of muddy thinking
> that invalidates everything said by anyone who writes it.

It is not muddy thinking, it is a deliberate attempt
to win an argument by asserting that ones thesis is a _fact_

--
Michael Press

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-03-18, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> We might as well debate whether "no particular interest" is (according
>> to Jobst's version of the Strunk & White approach) just as awful an
>> error as "the fact that," a false distinction that should be edited
>> out wherever it appears, and an unmistakable sign of muddy thinking
>> that invalidates everything said by anyone who writes it.
>
> It is not muddy thinking, it is a deliberate attempt
> to win an argument by asserting that ones thesis is a _fact_

It can be used like that, but not necessarily: you could perfectly well
say "the proposition that" (like your Abraham Lincoln) or "the thesis
that", etc.

Strunk & White are talking rubbish. The phrase does have a use which is
to turn an indirect statement into a noun. Yes you can just about elide
it but that can lead to confusion especially in a long sentence. There
is nothing wrong with long sentences and sometimes they need more
signposts in them like "the fact that" to help you find your way around.