« What Really Happened To The Moon Landing Tapes | Main | Always Vote Against The Incumbent »

08/17/2006

Comments

Noumenon

Thanks for answering. I got really worked up over this one for nothing, didn't I?

I figure lots of planes have been bombed by non-liquid bombs in the past, but no planes have been bombed by liquid bombs as far as I know, so it's not that big a hole. Oh! I see the problem. What Coulter meant is "Nothing being done differently by airport security since 9/11 would prevent a bomb from being brought onto an airplane." That's not very outrageous to say at all.

Tom McMahon

"Nothing being done by airport security since 9/11 would prevent this bomb from being brought onto an airplane" is the correct interpretation.

That was a BIG hole. So I think Ann is correct.

But I also see how a person could interpret her statement the way you do, too. I don't think it's correct, but I DO think it's defensible.

Noumenon

Is she trying to say "Nothing being done by airport security since 9/11 would prevent this bomb from being brought onto an airplane," or "Nothing being done by airport security since 9/11 would prevent any bomb from being brought onto an airplane"? Only the first version is true or derivable from the most recent incident using logic, but only the second version would support the claim "everything government airport screeners have been doing until now is completely pointless."

I have two questions for you, and one I know the answer for.
1. Did you realize this excerpt didn't make logical sense?
2. Does it matter to you if this makes logical sense when it said it so effectively?

I think the answer to question #2 is "No", and I am fine with that -- but it is driving me nuts that I honestly can't figure out the answer to question #1. What is your answer?

The comments to this entry are closed.