If you read it, note that there’s part of a long running pattern there. Bob accuses me of lying for saying he Bob) said Krugman won the debate. Further down I supply the quote in full where Bob said exactly that. This sort of thing has happened time after time. I quote or paraphrase Bob accurately, he calls me a liar, I supply links to whaty he aid.
Odd. Bob says “I am prepared to say PK WON” and notes, that not having seen it all, this can only be provisional. Yet you cannot see Bob said PK won? Anyway, if he changed his opinion upon watching the rest, where did he post it? You really believe that if PK’s response had been so catastrophic as to reverse Bob’s judgment that Bob wouldn’t mention it. If you or Bob can find that link, even a month later, please share it.
I think you must be joking Reece. Bob says has has not seen Krugman,s response yet, but from what he saw of the other guy he was so hopeless that “I am prepared to say Krugman won that debate.” Really, you think it outrageous to say of some aspect of that same weak performance “Maybe that’s why Bob says Krugman won the debate?”
In context, what Bob was saying was that he was open to concluding Krugman had won the debate, but wasn’t going to make any conclusion until he’d seen the whole debate. To say based on this that Bob claimed Krugman won the debate is incorrect.
Oh, you mean like “I am still prepared to say Pk won the debate.” Note the still I have added. Ok, I can see he might have meant that. He never did clarify though, did he? So yours might be viable reading. So is mine. In any case to call my reading a lie or falsehood is still way out of line.
“I am prepared to say PK WON” is not the same as saying “PK won.” Prepare means “make (something) ready for use or consideration.” This becomes especially clear given the context. In the next sentence he said, “I’m not yet declaring this.” Assuming the “this” refers to “PK won,” he said “I’m not yet declaring [PK won].”
Here, you claimed, “Further down I supply the quote in full where Bob said EXACTLY that [PK won].” (emphasis mine).
“Anyway, if he changed his opinion upon watching the rest, where did he post it?”
That isn’t the point. It’s very possible Bob ended up thinking Krugman won the debate, but he didn’t say so when you said he did. Saying someone believes something now that they don’t isn’t okay just because they will believe it in the future.
The last time you called me a liar you subsequently wrote me an email you had misunderstood what I said. You may publish the entire correspondence if you wish provided you do not edit it.
He actually did a pretty good job even while playing his character (which I initially thought was completely satirical).
I haven’t verified it myself, but apparently Colbert in real life is a devout Catholic.
Yep, Colbert is a practicing Catholic. He even teaches Sunday School.
Yes, he is a Catholic.
When he brings out the Gene Callahan defence at the end, you can tell it’s sincere.
The “please don’t refute me anymore, what is truth, you’ll see when you die” bit you mean?
No, the parable with the elephant.
“The first three were rough drafts”
-Hilarious!
I wonder how Murphy would handle such a series of blows from Colbert.
I on the other hand do know. http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/07/why-dont-i-spend-all-my-time-reading-about-church-history.html
If you read it, note that there’s part of a long running pattern there. Bob accuses me of lying for saying he Bob) said Krugman won the debate. Further down I supply the quote in full where Bob said exactly that. This sort of thing has happened time after time. I quote or paraphrase Bob accurately, he calls me a liar, I supply links to whaty he aid.
Okay, I’m confused. Where did Bob say exactly that?
Bob: “I haven’t watched the rest of it yet, but I am prepared to say, “Krugman won that debate.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not yet declaring this, because I have to see what Krugman says in response.” http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/07/move-pauls-book.html#comment-41246
Two posts later
Ken: “Maybe that’s why Murphy says PK won the debate.” http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/07/move-pauls-book.html#comment-41250
You’re only confused because you’re taking this troll seriously.
Odd. Bob says “I am prepared to say PK WON” and notes, that not having seen it all, this can only be provisional. Yet you cannot see Bob said PK won? Anyway, if he changed his opinion upon watching the rest, where did he post it? You really believe that if PK’s response had been so catastrophic as to reverse Bob’s judgment that Bob wouldn’t mention it. If you or Bob can find that link, even a month later, please share it.
I think you must be joking Reece. Bob says has has not seen Krugman,s response yet, but from what he saw of the other guy he was so hopeless that “I am prepared to say Krugman won that debate.” Really, you think it outrageous to say of some aspect of that same weak performance “Maybe that’s why Bob says Krugman won the debate?”
Ken,
In context, what Bob was saying was that he was open to concluding Krugman had won the debate, but wasn’t going to make any conclusion until he’d seen the whole debate. To say based on this that Bob claimed Krugman won the debate is incorrect.
This is not the hill to die on.
Oh, you mean like “I am still prepared to say Pk won the debate.” Note the still I have added. Ok, I can see he might have meant that. He never did clarify though, did he? So yours might be viable reading. So is mine. In any case to call my reading a lie or falsehood is still way out of line.
“I am prepared to say PK WON” is not the same as saying “PK won.” Prepare means “make (something) ready for use or consideration.” This becomes especially clear given the context. In the next sentence he said, “I’m not yet declaring this.” Assuming the “this” refers to “PK won,” he said “I’m not yet declaring [PK won].”
Here, you claimed, “Further down I supply the quote in full where Bob said EXACTLY that [PK won].” (emphasis mine).
“Anyway, if he changed his opinion upon watching the rest, where did he post it?”
That isn’t the point. It’s very possible Bob ended up thinking Krugman won the debate, but he didn’t say so when you said he did. Saying someone believes something now that they don’t isn’t okay just because they will believe it in the future.
I hope you’ve learned from this episode Reece. There are others just like it.
Liar.
The last time you called me a liar you subsequently wrote me an email you had misunderstood what I said. You may publish the entire correspondence if you wish provided you do not edit it.
Bob, I haven’t watced the Colbert video, but you can find some responses to some of Bart Ehrman’s stuff on the Stand to Reason site:
Stand to Reason, “bart ehrman” search
http://www.str.org/Search?q=bart+ehrman