At this moement I will refrain from the thing that I hate.
Yes, the sigh is their argument!
I do realize that rhetoric is no longer considered a proper subject of youth, but this takes the cake. Are you truly that unfamiliar with what an argument is? The argument is not just the logical bits, it is also the emotional bits that stir the reader/audience to agree with the writer/speaker.
The sigh is used to express utter devastation at another's incomprehension of basic facts that all are presumed to understand. The purposeful sigh is heinous, whether written or spoken, not only because it nets so many weak-minded people into believing an argument that is not necessarily worthy of such belief, but more importantly because it expresses sheer contempt for the contrary position.
In debate between gentlemen, only fools express contempt for the contrary position. In that they express contempt all the time, liberals are showing themselves to be full of crap. I have been deeply impressed by the high level of logical thought that goes on here at FR. Surely FR is better than the venial tactic of the sigh.
The sigh is commonly used at muddleheaded sites like Slashdot and DU where misspellings, flagrant grammar errors, and dodgy argument are the rule.
Let us not fall into the same hellish pit. Let us not stoop so low as to use the sigh when making arguments.
Another thing to watch out for are pompous, condescending, overbearing, tedious passive-voice arguments beginning with didactic structures like, "Let us not..."
No, the "sigh" is NOT the argument. The "sigh" is the editorial comment on the argument.
In this case it was intended as a well deserved insult to the commission and its associated idiocy.
As in, "Sigh... What a bunch of losers." (I couldn't resist.)
In debate between gentlemen, only fools express contempt for the contrary position.
Yes. And although it is a given that a person who would fob off his responsibilities into thin airActually, the sigh is not their arguement vis-a-vis the Gorelick memo, which follows, but an expression of their frustration with Bush's New Tone refusal to back up his own people.is no gentleman, that is not entirely true of all who would vote knowingly for such a person. There is a certain detatchment from reality in traditional behavior, and all-too-often voting and political opinions are exactly that rather than expression of rational thought. Although 2/3 of Christian voters voted for Bush, 1/3 of them voted for Gore, and I an friends with such a family. Grandma had a picture of John F. Kennedy over the mantle . . .
- Janet Reno "took responsibility" for Waco - no one was fired or resigned, and no one really blamed Ms. Reno for what happened within a month of her taking office
- Craig Livingstone "was hired" and "was fired" - but no one was responsible for hiring or firing him
- "It depends on the meaning of 'is'"
Ms. Gorelick's memo explicitly ordered seperation of criminal and intelligence information beyond the level mandated by law - explicitly to avoid a future appearance of impropriety. But now that she herself is the subject of an actual appearance of impropriety, her enthusiam for walking the extra mile has vanished and the familiar pettifoggery of the Clinton Administration is on display.
A lot of us are sighing.
35 posted on 05/03/2004 1:37:02 AM EDT by Jeff Chandler
Exactly.