Not squirming. Laughing :)

Well, agreement is a beautiful thing, but what I am actually saying is that there is a a (very) small chance that Churchill said it as YOU meant it...

So, "Seldom" means "Usually", or "Often".
And we're supposed to accept your reading on Churchill's use of words. You're clearly squirming.

End.

So, what you're saying is, that there is a very small chance Churchill meant it as you read it. I guess I can agree to that.

Well, agreement is a beautiful thing, but what I am actually saying is that there is a a (very) small chance that Churchill said it as YOU meant it...

And I mean small on the molecular level. Possibly sub-atomic.

Seldom does not mean never.

So, what you're saying is, that there is a very small chance Churchill meant it as you read it. I guess I can agree to that.

My sense of manners prevents me from trying to dictate what other people discuss in a public forum, but that is just me.

The guy who sits next to me at work has horrible taste in clothes, but I do not give him fashion advice. Different strokes for different folks.

Besides, pixels are really, really cheap...

I like to argue about politics, and apparently, so does bit.

I hate to break it to you, anjin-san, but you and Bit have wandered very far from politics as the topic of your argument.

As long as James does not object to our discussion, I see no reason why we should not have at it...

I guess mutual respect for the other people who like to discuss on OTB doesn't rank as a reason for you to remain civil. The police won't stop you from being rude to waitresses in a restaurant, but I sure hope in real life that doesn't cause you to abandon your manners.

Great and good are seldom the same man.

Words mean things, part 9:

sel·dom /ˈsɛldəm/

1. on only a few occasions; rarely; infrequently; not often: We seldom see our old neighbors anymore.
–adjective

2. rare; infrequent.

Seldom does not mean never.

It is also interesting that you postulate that, in one instance we can take Churchill at his word, and in one case not. Noted that you cherry pick to support your position.

As for FDR being a hero, well he did pull our country back from the brink of economic disaster that Hoover and the GOP had left it in when he took office, and lead us to victory in WW2. I think I will leave those accomplishments to speak for themselves.

He also created the G.I. Bill, which you Bushies appear to be against.

It is also interested that you conveniently ignore most of the quote in question "the truest friend" "the furthest vision". Do you have a theory that Churchill somehow equated the word "friend" with Satan worship?

I am not the one arguing that his words cannot be taken at face value, in fact, I do take them as such, so your point is meaningless.

Here what this comes out at;

I gave you a quote of Churchill, (One you apparently were not aware of, or you'd never have taken me on, on this point) which shows clearly he thought 'good' and 'great' to be two wholly separate things, instead of equating them as you suggest.

You have ignored it.

It's easier to go that way, I suppose, than admitting you got his meaning wrong, and that thereby your entire read of the situation regards the reading of FDR by one of his contemporaries was incorrect as well. When one worships heroes, one can tend away from the logical, after all, and clearly you hold FDR a hero against all historical evidence to the contrary.

Fine, if you want to play that way. Just don't be thinking we don't fully understand exactly why.

I think that you and anjin-san, on this thread, have hit the later.

And what is that to you? Feel free to ignore our conversation. I like to argue about politics, and apparently, so does bit. It's all in good fun, I make no claim to be a member of the Princeton Debate Team.

As long as James does not object to our discussion, I see no reason why we should not have at it...

(Chuckle) Yet, you seem to have no problem whateverattriuting YOUR meaning to his words, apparently ignoring in this case, Churchill's own quote:

I am not the one arguing that his words cannot be taken at face value, in fact, I do take them as such, so your point is meaningless. I provided, in some detail, the context for the quote, which you initially claimed I had taken out of context.

I almost never agree with you, but you are reasonably good at creating semantic smokescreens to obfuscate the fact that your arguments are not very good. Recommended reading:

Language in Action by S.I. Hayakawa

Its an excellent extension on the work of Korzybski.

And yes, I do know Hayakawa was a conservative. There are more than a few conservatives I admire...

All good conversations .. even ones happening in the first person... wander a bit while exploring various aspects of the original point.

There's wandering a bit, and stepping into the Twilight Zone. I think that you and anjin-san, on this thread, have hit the later.

Ankin made an argument with a hole large enough to drive a truck through it, and I made note of the hole. Instead of simply acknoledging the point, he dances.

But it takes two to tango, as they say, and you eagerly followed his lead.

Bithead & anjin-san,
Don't you guys get tired of this?

It's the Itchy & Scratchy showwwwwwwwww

But you point is well taken. Its a bit like the old line about trying to teach a pig to sing....

All good conversations .. even ones happening in the first person... wander a bit while exploring various aspects of the original point.

Ankin made an argument with a hole large enough to drive a truck through it, and I made note of the hole. Instead of simply acknoledging the point, he dances. (Shrug)
Goes with the territory of questioning the misconceptions of a liberal.

You're not even arguing the original point anymore, you're fighting about whether or not Churchill liked FDR, based on the definition of the word "great". At what point does it become too ridiculous to keep trying to one-up each other?