Errrr... run that past me again?

>>So, is Pericles now trying to argue that the apparent complete absence of terrorists linked to 9/11 in Afghanistan is stronger confirmation that that country is where 9/11 was plotted and terrorists used in 9/11 and other attacks trained than if terrorists linked to 9/11 had been captured?<<

If I could be bothered to unravel this desperately contorted sentence, I think the answer would probably be "no". It usually is with you, daggett.

>>So is Pericles trying to tell us that whenever he "los[es] track of" his car keys that he never finds them again?<<

No. (There, you see?)

That's the point of the "But in this instance..." at the beginning of the next sentence.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother, if you're not even going to read what is written.

Do try to keep up, daggett.

Pericles: <"If I am to be insulted, I would prefer the insults to be grammatical.">

Lmfao.

Sorry you two that I haven't kept up with the other thread and have arrived late at this one. This is a treasure box of reading.

Just had tears rolling along with hearty gut laughter.

You two really should work up a stage act and start charging.

This is the funniest stuff!

If Pericles were to look carefully at that sentence of which he complains, he would find that it is grammatically correct and that it follows logically from the nonsense it was in response to.

To get things back on track, when Pericles wrote:

"The absence of evidence does not provide good reason to doubt anything. In fact, to most people, it suggests the opposite - nothing to see here, move along."

... It would seem then that he is arguing that it's OK for the US to invade any country it likes even if it is unable to produce, even eight and a half years after that invasion, to produce any evidence whatsover in support of its stated reasons for invading.

I would be interested to know what Pericles would have us think is the evidence in support of the US justification for invasion.

---

So, it would seem that Pericles does find his car keys after he loses track of them, after all (as I would have thought).

So, is Pericles going to let us know when any of that $2.3 trillion in transactions which the Pentagon was unable to keep track of on 10 Sep 2001 were also found again?

And if they were not found again, could he answer my previous question of for how much longer will the the Pentagon remain unable to keep track of those transactions, before he is willing to concede that those funds have gone missing?

You're right, Pynchme - this thread is a hoot to follow.

<< If Pericles were to look carefully at that sentence of which he complains, he would find that it is grammatically correct and that it follows logically from the nonsense it was in response to. >>

daggett - don't you know that it's gramatically incorrect to use a preposition to end a sentence with?

Don't spoil it, you guys.

>>You're right, Pynchme - this thread is a hoot to follow.<<

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits

Pericles wrote, "Don't spoil it, you guys."

I'm sure that Pericles can be completely reassured that neither PynchMe nor Christopher will spoil matters for him by attempting to discuss the evidence.