On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:49:08 -0500, JR wrote:
Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
"JR" wrote
wrote:
...and it's effective, too...
Yeah? How do you know?
I believe Richard was correcting the ROFF's own Theo-Neocon's grammar.
I got that, Op. Way I read it, though, after correcting Dave, he
went on to say the technique itself was effective.
Hellfire, man, didn't you read Steve's cite...are you suggesting not
only that Steve would post things that aren't the story, the whole
story, and nothing but the story, but also that he could even find
things on the internet that aren't 100% legit and accurate? It should
be clear that the anonymous poster Steve found on the internet and cites
as evidence thinks it is effective...what more solid-as-a-rock, concrete
proof could you want?
Richard, if that's what you meant, how do you know?
I could tell you how, but then, I'd have to kill you. Well, maybe not
kill you, but I'd have to do something to you, like mess up your hair or
frog your arm or something...
Happy Holidays,
R
....and on a more serious note - do you doubt that it is effective?
Here's an interesting thing: The debate, seemingly and for most, is
not over its effectiveness in making people disclose information, but
rather, whether or not it is or isn't "torture." Take, for example, the
recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly
that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it
being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all)
opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as
a method of gaining information.