Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Peter Fonda - domestic terrorist; He went too far
Topic Started: Jun 21 2018, 11:25 PM (333 Views)
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ImaHeadaU
Jun 23 2018, 02:26 AM
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 01:46 AM
I think you are being somewhat more ambiguous in you answers. You said "actual intent" originally. I was just starting to believe you, now I don't know what to think as you are now being more "subjective," more "vague," more "speculative" in your answer when before (in your explanation of "I will," "you will,") you seemed more definite, more objective, in saying "active intent."
I'm no more speculative than you are when you interpret Strozk's "We" to mean the FBI.

I didn't mean and didn't include the FBI other than Page and Strzok being FBI agents and whose actions reflect on the FBI." I quoted Page and Strzok's wording. They just happened to high ranking members of the FBI.... under James Comey.

You were so "exact" in your explanation of the difference of "I will" or "you will" over "maybe we should" and "should be" as being "actual intent." So, what Strzok and Page wrote, according to your explicit definition, Strzok's comment of "we will," can only be taken as the "actual intent of a high ranking FBI agent. What Strzok answered to Page's question fits more to your "actual intent" explanation of "I will," "you will," "we will." I'm just going by your definitions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImaHeadaU
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 06:05 AM
ImaHeadaU
Jun 23 2018, 02:26 AM
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 01:46 AM
I think you are being somewhat more ambiguous in you answers. You said "actual intent" originally. I was just starting to believe you, now I don't know what to think as you are now being more "subjective," more "vague," more "speculative" in your answer when before (in your explanation of "I will," "you will,") you seemed more definite, more objective, in saying "active intent."
I'm no more speculative than you are when you interpret Strozk's "We" to mean the FBI.

I didn't mean and didn't include the FBI other than Page and Strzok being FBI agents and whose actions reflect on the FBI." I quoted Page and Strzok's wording. They just happened to high ranking members of the FBI.... under James Comey.

You were so "exact" in your explanation of the difference of "I will" or "you will" over "maybe we should" and "should be" as being "actual intent." So, what Strzok and Page wrote, according to your explicit definition, Strzok's comment of "we will," can only be taken as the "actual intent of a high ranking FBI agent. What Strzok answered to Page's question fits more to your "actual intent" explanation of "I will," "you will," "we will." I'm just going by your definitions.
It remains that Strozk's "We" can be interpreted however anyone chooses to imagine it. He, himself has said that he doesn't remember composing that text and can only guess at what he may have meant.

It can mean you and I as well as those of us of like mind.

My point is that we can only imagine what it was meant to mean in that moment. My interpretation is no better than yours. There is no precise meaning in this instance.

In Peter Fonda's tweets, there was no "I will, "you will" or "we will" do anything stated. Since no declarative statement of intent was made, there is no useful purpose in pondering who "I," "you" or "we" might be in Fonda's case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
:spinning:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ImaHeadaU
Jun 23 2018, 10:42 AM
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 06:05 AM
ImaHeadaU
Jun 23 2018, 02:26 AM
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 01:46 AM
I think you are being somewhat more ambiguous in you answers. You said "actual intent" originally. I was just starting to believe you, now I don't know what to think as you are now being more "subjective," more "vague," more "speculative" in your answer when before (in your explanation of "I will," "you will,") you seemed more definite, more objective, in saying "active intent."
I'm no more speculative than you are when you interpret Strozk's "We" to mean the FBI.

I didn't mean and didn't include the FBI other than Page and Strzok being FBI agents and whose actions reflect on the FBI." I quoted Page and Strzok's wording. They just happened to high ranking members of the FBI.... under James Comey.

You were so "exact" in your explanation of the difference of "I will" or "you will" over "maybe we should" and "should be" as being "actual intent." So, what Strzok and Page wrote, according to your explicit definition, Strzok's comment of "we will," can only be taken as the "actual intent of a high ranking FBI agent. What Strzok answered to Page's question fits more to your "actual intent" explanation of "I will," "you will," "we will." I'm just going by your definitions.


It remains that Strozk's "We" can be interpreted however anyone chooses to imagine it. He, himself has said that he doesn't remember composing that text and can only guess at what he may have meant.

At the very least Strzok's "we'll, stop it" includes Strzok and Page... both FBI agents. Considering Strzok's position in the FBI, that's enough for me. .

My point is that we can only imagine what it was meant to mean in that moment. My interpretation is no better than yours. There is no precise meaning in this instance.

You indicated in your prior post that "I will," "you will" carries more weight, more emphasis and represents "active intent," "ACTIVE INTENT.

"It is the difference between a direct stated intent and a vague speculation
. Those were your words.

Now you want to make Strzok's "active intent" words seem less active, more vague, more speculative and subjective and mean no more than, "I should," "maybe we should (as you wrote)," .... your "speculative" words, which you implied does not include "active intent." That's ambiguous. So, by your definition of word meanings in your prior post, Strzok's words implies "active intent" to stop Trump from becoming president... an interference of an presidential election that would be equal to, and worse than the Left implying interference by Russia. No different.



In Peter Fonda's tweets, there was no "I will, "you will" or "we will" do anything stated. Since no declarative statement of intent was made, there is no useful purpose in pondering who "I," "you" or "we" might be in Fonda's case.

I didn't make any reference to Peter Fonda's tweets. I referred to the Page/Strzok emails (tweets) using your definition of "active intent."
Edited by Banandangees, Jun 23 2018, 09:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImaHeadaU
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 02:48 PM
Now you want to make Strzok's "active intent" words seem less active, more vague, more speculative and subjective and mean no more than, "I should," "maybe we should (as you wrote)," .... your "speculative" words, which you implied does not include "active intent." That's ambiguous. So, by your definition of word meanings in your prior post, Strzok's words implies "active intent" to stop Trump from becoming president... an interference of an presidential election that would be equal to, and worse than the Left implying interference by Russia. No different.[/i][/color]
"We'll, stop it."

Neither of us knows who his "we" encompasses nor do we know exactly what "it" refers to or how they might "stop" whatever "it" is.

If Strzok wanted "to stop Trump from becoming president" he could have disclosed that Donald Trump's campaign was being investigated for its contacts with Russian spies. The FBI wasn't shy about reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. If he was favouring Hillary Clinton, he didn't do much to help her election.

You can imagine what Strzok's words mean but that doesn't make your imaginings true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ImaHeadaU
Jun 24 2018, 01:14 AM
Banandangees
Jun 23 2018, 02:48 PM
Now you want to make Strzok's "active intent" words seem less active, more vague, more speculative and subjective and mean no more than, "I should," "maybe we should (as you wrote)," .... your "speculative" words, which you implied does not include "active intent." That's ambiguous. So, by your definition of word meanings in your prior post, Strzok's words implies "active intent" to stop Trump from becoming president... an interference of an presidential election that would be equal to, and worse than the Left implying interference by Russia. No different.[/i][/color]
"We'll, stop it."

Neither of us knows who his "we" encompasses nor do we know exactly what "it" refers to or how they might "stop" whatever "it" is.

If Strzok wanted "to stop Trump from becoming president" he could have disclosed that Donald Trump's campaign was being investigated for its contacts with Russian spies. The FBI wasn't shy about reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. If he was favouring Hillary Clinton, he didn't do much to help her election.

You can imagine what Strzok's words mean but that doesn't make your imaginings true.

What "it" is is pretty plain by the two statements of Page and Strzok. Their subject was Trump becoming president. And Strzok's answer to Page was, "We'll stop it." Perfect example of your "active intent" definition.


You: "You can imagine what Strzok's words mean but that doesn't make your imaginings true."

Apparently your words aren't true either. You made an emphatic statement as to the difference of "active intent" and "speculation." Now you describe both as "speculative." Mumbo jumbo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'ma, you are losing. Time to retreat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImaHeadaU
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Jun 24 2018, 02:45 PM
You made an emphatic statement as to the difference of "active intent" and "speculation." Now you describe both as "speculative."
In Mr. Fonda's tweets, the "it" was much more firmly established. He suggested that "maybe we should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles." He suggested the possibility of a potential action which we could call the "it" in this case. We know what "it" is since he clearly lays "It" out even though he makes no concrete statement that he or anyone would actually do it.

In Mr. Strzok's case when he said "We'll, stop it," it is unclear who will "stop" what. He doesn't specify either. We can speculate what he meant but that would be anyone's guess right or wrong.

If we choose your speculation that he would act to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president, that certainly didn't happen. If anything he helped Donald Trump. He might have made public the fact that Mr. Trump's campaign was under investigation for its contacts with Russian spies but he didn't do that. What he did was to provide the basis for which James Comey made public critical statements about Hillary Clinton re. her private e-mail server and Mr. Comey re-opened the investigation into it just days before the election which quite likely handed the election to Donald Trump.

If Mr. Strzok wanted to stop the election of Donald Trump, he made a poor job of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
doglaugh :hystery:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis