Discussion:
omitting details
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-11 22:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1) The problems included omitting details that made Page look less suspicious.


Source:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-apologizes-court-botching-surveillance-144949528.html

Doesn't '1' mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean?
I think in the writers mind it is the omitting that makes Page look less
suspicious. I am trying to read the sentence that way, but I don't think one can.
I think the sentence is unambiguous!

Gratefully,
Navi
Mark Brader
2020-01-12 04:54:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) The problems included omitting details that made Page look less suspicious.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-apologizes-court-botching-surveillance-144949528.html
Doesn't '1' mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean?
No.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I think in the writers mind it is the omitting that makes Page look less
suspicious.
No, that's in your mind.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am trying to read the sentence that way, but I don't think
one can.
Don't try; that's not the meaning.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I think the sentence is unambiguous!
You're right.

Look at the previous paragraph: according to Horowitz, the FBI
"cherry-picked and misstated evidence" about Page, "when seeking
permission to wiretap him". In other words, they *wanted* to make
him look suspicious.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, ***@vex.net | "If the enemy is in range, so are you."

My text in this article is in the public domain.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-12 06:01:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) The problems included omitting details that made Page look less suspicious.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-apologizes-court-botching-surveillance-144949528.html
Doesn't '1' mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean?
No.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I think in the writers mind it is the omitting that makes Page look less
suspicious.
No, that's in your mind.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am trying to read the sentence that way, but I don't think
one can.
Don't try; that's not the meaning.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I think the sentence is unambiguous!
You're right.
Look at the previous paragraph: according to Horowitz, the FBI
"cherry-picked and misstated evidence" about Page, "when seeking
permission to wiretap him". In other words, they *wanted* to make
him look suspicious.
--
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Thank you very much, Mark,

My apologies. Clearly, I was mistaken. I was too hasty in jumping to
conclusions.

Respectfully,
Navi
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-12 15:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) The problems included omitting details that made Page look less suspicious.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-apologizes-court-botching-surveillance-144949528.html
Doesn't '1' mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean?
I think in the writers mind it is the omitting that makes Page look less
suspicious. I am trying to read the sentence that way, but I don't think one can.
I think the sentence is unambiguous!
No idea how you arrived at that interpretation.

It kinda depends on the speaker's attitude toward Page, doesn't it?

For instance, if this is a surveillance report, it ought to be objective;
and if it's a report for a prosecutor, it ought to be damn sure to include
any exculpatory evidence or the defense could demand a mistrial.
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-12 20:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) The problems included omitting details that made Page look less suspicious.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-apologizes-court-botching-surveillance-144949528.html
Doesn't '1' mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean?
I think in the writers mind it is the omitting that makes Page look less
suspicious. I am trying to read the sentence that way, but I don't think one can.
I think the sentence is unambiguous!
No idea how you arrived at that interpretation.
It kinda depends on the speaker's attitude toward Page, doesn't it?
For instance, if this is a surveillance report, it ought to be objective;
and if it's a report for a prosecutor, it ought to be damn sure to include
any exculpatory evidence or the defense could demand a mistrial.
The FBI apologised for errors & omissions in its application to a FISA
court for permission to conduct surveillance.

They pointed out that the omissions included items which supported the
application, as well as items which would have weighed against it - to
counter claims that they were acting out of a political bias.
--
Sam Plusnet
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-13 01:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) The problems included omitting details that made Page look less suspicious.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-apologizes-court-botching-surveillance-144949528.html
Doesn't '1' mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean?
I think in the writers mind it is the omitting that makes Page look less
suspicious. I am trying to read the sentence that way, but I don't think one can.
I think the sentence is unambiguous!
No idea how you arrived at that interpretation.
It kinda depends on the speaker's attitude toward Page, doesn't it?
For instance, if this is a surveillance report, it ought to be objective;
and if it's a report for a prosecutor, it ought to be damn sure to include
any exculpatory evidence or the defense could demand a mistrial.
Thank you both very much,

I always assume that these people are worse that they seem!!

Respectfully,
Navi

Loading...