I caught a piece of W's "press conference" earlier today. Here's a choice quote (from memory):
Let's not forget that the UN Security Council passed innumerable resolutions against Sadam Hussein.Hm. Since its inception the UN Security council has only passed 1500-odd resolutions.Not one, or two or three, but a lot.
The President must be using some definition of «innumerable» with which I am previously unacquainted...
Re:Innumerable
ziggy on 2003-10-29T03:15:04
No, he had five fingers visible on each hand during this press conference. I cannot verify how many toes he has, but with those ten fingers, he should be able to count up to 1023 quite easily.Chances are good that W has a full set of toes, too. He should be able to count all the way up to 1,048,575 with his fingers and toes.
Ergo, innumerable should be a quantity larger than one million-something.
Counting
htoug on 2003-10-29T10:00:49
Counting in binary would imho be much too complicated for W.He has just gotten beyond the "one, two, many" stage, but switching hands to count more than 5 is probably just to complex.
Ergo, innumerable is more than 5 - for W.
Re:Counting
pudge on 2003-10-29T22:46:52
Counting in binary would be much too complicated for ME. Anyway, the number of resolutions was about 12. But I am just SHOCKED that ANYONE would use the WRONG WORD BY MISTAKE. Sure, Bush does it more often than most politicians, though I bet less often than many of his critics around here would, in his place. Of course, we expect more from him than we do of ourselves, since he's the President and we're not, but to use it as a means to say he's stupid when we ourselves would make many mistakes and we don't think we are stupid is pretty... well, you know. Re:Counting
jdporter on 2003-11-05T22:23:28
No, not stupid; pathetic.It would be, IMHO, inexcusable for the President not to know exactly how many resolutions the UN Security Council has passed "against" Saddam Hussein. But even if he does know, I doubt that's what he meant to imply by "innumerable". He was clearly meaning to say "lots and lots". Which in and of itself is a lie.
Re:Counting
pudge on 2003-11-05T23:02:17
He was clearly meaning to say "lots and lots". Which in and of itself is a lie.
In UN terms, more than a resolution a year against one person/regime over 12 years certainly can be reasonably said to be "lots and lots," first, because that is an extraordinarily large number, and second, because "lots and lots" is vague and has no specific value. So, now YOU'RE lying. Hum.
Re:Counting
jdporter on 2003-11-07T05:12:36
By no stretch of anyone's imagination can 12 be considered large enough to be approximated by "innumerable".
As I see it, there are two possibilities: either he didn't know the actual number, and assumed/hoped it was large enough that "innumerable" was a forgivable exaggeration; or he did, and was deliberately misleading his audience as to the magnitude of the number. Which is more likely and which is more reprehensible are questions for another thread...
Re:Counting
pudge on 2003-11-07T06:42:42
By no stretch of anyone's imagination can 12 be considered large enough to be approximated by "innumerable".
Of course. But as you said, he misspoke, and meant "numerous" (in your words, "lots and lots").
was deliberately misleading his audience as to the magnitude of the number. Which is more likely
His primary audience was the White House press corps. They all know about how many resolutions have been passed against Iraq. That is not likely at all.
Re:Counting
jdporter on 2003-11-07T17:37:27
Ah. Speaking to the press is not the same as speaking to the American people, to the entire world. If he were speaking to the public at large, he would have spoken more accurately and honestly. Yes, of course.Re:Counting
pudge on 2003-11-07T18:11:27
Speaking to the press is not the same as speaking to the American people, to the entire world.
Correct.
If he were speaking to the public at large, he would have spoken more accurately and honestly.
No, he would have been speaking from a prepared speech.
Re:Counting
jdporter on 2003-11-07T21:40:44
Correct.Speaking to the press is not the same as speaking to the American people, to the entire world.Incorrect.
No, he would have been speaking from a prepared speech.If he were speaking to the public at large, he would have spoken more accurately and honestly.Unfortunately, I can't disagree! It seems entirely likely that, even if speaking from a prepared speech, he would have been as dishonest and inaccurate as in his off-the-cuff comments. Unfortunate that so many people find this acceptable in a President.
Re:Innumerable
jdavidboyd on 2003-10-29T14:33:32
Wouldn't that be "3"?
Strangely, I prefer that to the toothless "a number of", which seems to have replaced the more concrete (if dull) "many", "several", and "six". Witness:
There are a number of steps to this recipe.
Yes, and my cat's breath smells like cat food. Tell me how many! Zero is a number. One million is a number. That's a wide range. At least use some sort of abstract word that gives some idea of what you mean!
I truly believe the pseudo-intelligentsia that clutch these mortologia will soon parrot sentences such as "Irregardless of the innovative intuitions, most enterprise desktop utilizers do not consider Linux a win-win situation for everyone. It is not ready for prime time."
Surprisingly, I'm starting to prefer the word "blog".
Re:Yick
pudge on 2003-10-29T22:47:44
Surprisingly, I'm starting to prefer the word "blog".
Hm. And just when I was beginning to think you were smarter than you looked.Re:Yick
chromatic on 2003-10-29T23:39:35
At least you can't confuse it for anything meaningful.
Re:Yick
pudge on 2003-10-30T02:06:42
Are you saying we are not saying anything meaningful in here? A pox on your ugly head!
