Supreme court ducks the issue

Quote from axeman:

Not quite Pabst.

If you agree with 777, then you put yourself in a very difficult position.

Those 4 newspaper headlines all used the words dodged and sidestepped.

So this begs the question:

Do all 4 of those newspapers believe that the word dodge/sidestep
implies some kind of political conspiracy, that the supreme court
wiggled its way out of a tough ruling by pushing a technicality???

OOORRRR.... does it simply prove that their choice of words are
simply synonyms for the fact that the supreme court did not
address the core separation of church and state issue?

Or maybe you are aware of a different meaning for the
word dodge in this context??
It seems 777 is offended that anyone would use the word
DODGE because it implies that the supreme court somehow cheated.

Why do YOU think the 4 newspaper headlines MEANT when
they said DODGED and SIDESTEPPED????


peace

axeman
More...

What newspapers? Pravda? I don't see any synonym of "dodge" appearing in the headlined stories appearing in the NYT or in either of the D.C. papers.

Yes the words dodge or sidestep connote an inability to tackle a question head on. Keep in mind though that if the case been heard, I suspect the 9th would have been overturned. Tellingly, although Scalia recused himself (because of public comments regarding the lower courts decision), it was conservative Justices who lobbied for Newdow's legal parental standing. Newdow was history no matter if a decision was made or not.
 
Art:
>Did the department head "duck" or "sidestep"
>an interview with the candidate?

By dictionary reference it is provable the ONE valid answer to the above it "yes".

I would also agree that the most common usage of the above would imply something nefarious.

JB
 
Quote from Pabst:

What newspapers? Pravda? I don't see any synonym of "dodge" appearing in the headlined stories appearing in the NYT or in either of the D.C. papers.

Yes the words dodge or sidestep connote an inability to tackle a question head on.
More...

CNN online even used the term "sidestep". *One* of the dictionary terms for sidestep is "evade", though I don't believe that is how it was meant.

JB
 
Quote from Pabst:

Keep in mind though that if the case been heard, I suspect the 9th would have been overturned. Tellingly, although Scalia recused himself (because of public comments regarding the lower courts decision), it was conservative Justices who lobbied for Newdow's legal parental standing. Newdow was history no matter if a decision was made or not.
More...

I believe you are quite likely right.

JB
 
It means what you read into it for you, and who knows what you are reading into a headline.

My read is the connotation of the word "duck" "dodge" "sidestep" as it is used typically, as it is being used in this context means abandon willingly a responsibility. Newspapers use language to inflame the readers, both pro and con. They use colorful language to sell papers, not dry and exact terms to avoid misunderstanding.

Their use of the word "duck" "dodge" or "sidestep" implies that the court did not fulfill their responsibility. It implies that they were unwilling to examine the issues, when in fact they were perfectly willing to hear the issues if the case were not technically flawed. Their duty is to reject such cases of technical flaw, they did their duty properly.

The court did no such thing as "dodge" "duck" nor "sidestep." The court acted properly to "dismiss" and "reject" the case.

The member of the atheist cult you quoted is naturally pissed off, he would naturally choose the word "duck" or "dodge" feeling the court had a responsibility to hear the issues of the case, but he was wrong.

Surprising actually, that the atheist cult member would not be more reasonable and rational in his choice of words, and understand that what the court did was reasonable, rational, and proper given the circumstances.

I guess this is a very emotional issue for this cult group.


Quote from axeman:

So tell us then ART.

**WHAT** did the 4 newspaper headlines MEAN
by dodge/sidestep??? HMMMMMMM??????????


Come on boy... you can answer this one.
Its not that tough, really :D

peace

axeman
More...
 
What newspapers???
Ummmm Pabst... I QUOTED them in a previous post on this thread,
including the washington post and LA times and 2 others.
I went to www.latimes.com, for example, and it was
on their front page where I did a DIRECT copy and paste. :confused:

Just checked...STILL the top headline.



Now back to the question, which you still havent answered yet
which gets to the core of this discussion:


WHAT did the newspapers MEAN by dodge/sidestep???

Please answer the question this time.


peace

axeman







Quote from Pabst:

What newspapers? Pravda? I don't see any synonym of "dodge" appearing in the headlined stories appearing in the NYT or in either of the D.C. papers.

Yes the words dodge or sidestep connote an inability to tackle a question head on. Keep in mind though that if the case been heard, I suspect the 9th would have been overturned. Tellingly, although Scalia recused himself (because of public comments regarding the lower courts decision), it was conservative Justices who lobbied for Newdow's legal parental standing. Newdow was history no matter if a decision was made or not.
More...
 
It means what you read into it for you, and who knows what you are reading into a headline.

AAaaaaaaahhhh Optional finally ADMITS the word can
have several meanings! :D

ME reading into the headline! Thats laughable!!
Its CLEARLY YOU that is reading into the headline and
implying some kind of cheating...LOL :p

My read is the connotation of the word "duck" "dodge" "sidestep" as it is used typically, as it is being used in this context means abandon willingly a responsibility. Newspapers use language to inflame the readers, both pro and con. They use colorful language to sell papers, not dry and exact terms to avoid misunderstanding.

Their use of the word "duck" "dodge" or "sidestep" implies that the court did not fulfill their responsibility. It implies that they were unwilling to examine the issues, when in fact they were perfectly willing to hear the issues if the case were not technically flawed. Their duty is to reject such cases of technical flaw, they did their duty properly.

LOL.... now he can read the minds of the newspaper writers too!!

Wow ART... we already know you THINK you have magical powers
like communicating with god directly, but now you can read
these peoples minds too? Amazing...truly amazing! LMAOOOOO :p


The court did no such thing as "dodge" "duck" nor "sidestep." The court acted properly to "dismiss" and "reject" the case.

Blah blah blah....keep repeating that to yourself.
Whos the PARROT now? LOL!

I thought this was already settled. There are MULTIPLE meanings
of the word DODGE/SIDESTEP and its perfectly reasonable
to read it as "the court failed to address the core issue".
End of debate.


The member of the atheist cult you quoted is naturally pissed off, he would naturally choose the word "duck" or "dodge" feeling the court had a responsibility to hear the issues of the case, but he was wrong.

More Ad Hominem attacks. Cult? Thats pretty funny coming
from someone who claims to speak to god himself! LMAOOO :p


Surprising actually, that the atheist cult member would not be more reasonable and rational in his choice of words, and understand that what the court did was reasonable, rational, and proper given the circumstances.

Again...MULTIPLE sources CHOSE THE SAME WORDING.
YOU are the one with the problem reading to deeply and ASSUMING
you KNOW the true meaning of the words they chose.



I guess this is a very emotional issue for this cult group.


I think its clear who is emotional here.... you keep attacking
people with labels as CULT MEMBERS.....calm down ok?
I know it hurts when you're wrong...but really...its ok ART.

Now run off and go talk to god some more while you read
peoples minds...LMAOOOO :p


peace

axeman
 
Thats true when you have someone like Optional777 who
thinks he is the SOLE authority on the definition of every word
on the planet, and further thinks he KNOWS exactly what
newspaper writers MEANT when they wrote something as if
he can read their minds :p

Sorry 777, but there ARE multiple valid meanings to words,
and you have NO authority to claim WHICH meaning
applies in THIS case, since you CANT read the newspaper
writers minds, and you cant read mine either.

My position stands.... the core church/separation issue was NOT addressed. Period.
It was dodged, sidestepped, avoided, call it whatever you want,
im not interested in another silly semantic war with a guy
who thinks he can speak to god and read minds :D


peace

axeman


Quote from Banjo:

You guys could do twenty minutes with a dead dog.:D
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top