[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Actually, he was trying to say as much as possible not as little as possible. If he had just taken the extra second to say 'I took the initiative in the legislation that created the internet." he'd have been completely correct -- he was a primary sponsor on both major 1970s and 1980s bills that made the Internet what it is today. In that case this ridiculous controversy would never have occured.

I don't think that is correct Baron. I have looked, because I do try to be as accurate as possible on these things rather then just spouting off conservative propaganda. The only Internet related bill I can find that he sponsered and became law was the US High Performance Computing Act in 1991. I am sure this bill had an impact on the development and expansion of the internet, particularly the establishment of several governmental agency websites. But does it give Gore the right to claim that he took the iniative in creating the internet?

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

That is a nice rant Teal, but no. I did not say that point of view never has anything to do with interpreting language. I said in this case it does not. Gore directly stated he created the internet (take the internet to mean whatever you want it to). That does not mean several different things, it means that he created the internet. He had no part in creating the internet, so his statement is wrong. Some legislation, sure. But not any part of the internet itself.

[Wardad]

"Create" was the wrong word for Gore to use.

Gore was a facilitator and a sponsor.

The cealing if the Sisten Chapel was commissioned, sponsered, and even initiated by the clergy. The actual art was created by the artist.

[Fyron]

Yes, create was the wrong word to use. Teal just will not admit that Gore made a mistake in his speech.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is a nice rant Teal, but no. I did not say that point of view never has anything to do with interpreting language. I said in this case it does not. Gore directly stated he created the internet (take the internet to mean whatever you want it to). That does not mean several different things, it means that he created the internet. He had no part in creating the internet, so his statement is wrong. Some legislation, sure. But not any part of the internet itself.

I don't think it is right to characterize Teal's statements as a rant. Personally, I found his statements to be reasoned and well-expressed in putting forth a view that may differ from that taken by most people

And I agree with Wardad that a beter word could have been used.

[Fyron]

It was a rant because it was long, and completely filled with statements that he had already made that had had counters posted against them. And, it was going off on tangents, which makes it more of a rant. Rants are not required to be illogical or anything like that. Most of them aren't.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a rant because it was long, and completely filled with statements that he had already made that had had counters posted against them. And, it was going off on tangents, which makes it more of a rant. Rants are not required to be illogical or anything like that. Most of them aren't.

No Fyron it was anything but a rant.

The New Webster's Collegiate Dictionary describes a rant as:
1. to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2. to scold vehemently: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

He did none of these. The fact that you think he repeated himself or that you think it was long, or that you think it was off tangent or that you may think it is illogical has little or no bearing on whether it is a rant or not.

He was stating his opinion in a very calm and collected manner which is the very opposite of the rant you accuse him of.

Right or wrong, he is entitled to his opinion and shouldn't be put down for it. It is immorally wrong to characterize what he has said as a rant.

[Baron Munchausen]

Al Gore and the Internet (Sept. 28, 2000)

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

---

Vin Cerf is one of the people who really can claim to have invented the Internet, btw. And he understood what Gore meant.

Some of the specific legislation that Al Gore supported:

1986 - National Science Foundation Authorization Act
1986 - Supercomputer Network Study Act
1988 - National High-Performance Computer Technology Act
1991 - High Performance Computing Act

And he was Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space for several years before he joined Clinton to run for VP.

[teal]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Point of view has little to do with what the statements Gore made mean. It is irrelevant what he meant to say, all that matters for purposes of this argument is what he said. And what he said indicates that he had a large hand in the creation of the internet (take the internet to mean whatever the heck you want, it doesn't matter). Which of course he did not. In all probability it was a mistatement (an error), but of course Gore can never make errors. Its always taken out of context. This is the picture you are painting by essentially ignoring the only reasonable meaning of his statement and creating new meanings that show that Gore did not make a verbal gaffe.

Oh boy here we go again... IF: You make a fundamental logical error when you assume that a statement can only mean one reasonable thing. That is not true. Any statement in natural language above the complexity of "run spot run" can be interpreted in a number of different ways (probably infinite and come to think of it I can interpret run spot run in at least two different ways... ). This is why translation programs have such difficulty, language is a hell of a lot more than just some definitions and word replacements that you can string together. If your view of language was correct (that point of view doesn't matter when interpreting language) then translation programs would all work flawlessly and we know they don't. The point is that given multiple different ways of interpreting a statement we look to context and our personal life experience and redundancy to figure out what the hell someone means. The context of this particular statement is important that's why Gore supporters tend to quote the whole thing while Gore detractors tend to quote just the particular sentence under consideration. As Geo has shown me, life experience is also very important in interpreting this particular quote. Different peoples amongst the vastly different sub cultures of America will interpret the quote differently even under context.

What Geo and I are arguing about is actually a very very subtle difference in opinion. Alien beings watching this, and probably several forum lurkers are probably scratching their heads and going... WTF? those two don't actually disagree about anything at all... That's why I asked him to define his terms a while back. The term verbal gaffe in the context of this argument means a *serious* verbal misstatement not its more general meaning of simply a statement that can be interpreted wrongly out of context. I maintain that Gore's statment is on the order of magnitude of AK's example of Bush waving to Stevie Wonder (in one point of view that's dumb bc/ SW is blind, from another point of view that's perfectly reasonable because the other people watching are not blind and like for certain social norms to be observed even when they are somewhat silly in that particular context i.e. *nothing* about Bush's action was the slightest bit weird or wrong). Given these two points of view I'm sure reasonable people will choose both, since the issue is muddied we give Bush the benefit of the doubt and move on. That's the level of verbal gaffe that I would classify Gore's statement as, there isn't anything at all wrong about it (ala Bush's waving to SW) but people predisposed to a certain mindset can certainly interpret it that way. Geo seems to be mainting something far more serious, that Gore's statement was factually incorrect and that *NO* reasonable case can possibly be presented otherwise. I find this point of view perplexing.

Lastly you guys can try to hang me with the rabid Gore fanboy label who thinks Gore can do no wrong all you want. It won't stick. The guy did some incredibly dumb things during the course of the campaign. Serious strategic errors and the like and probably even made many verbal gaffes (of the garden variety not the *serious* variety). I'm no Gore fanboy and I maintain that this particular statement is not a *serious* verbal gaffe but merely a "poor choice of words" as defined earlier by Geo.

Cheers!

Teal

[Fyron]

Tbontob, a rant in the forum sense of the word is exactly what Teal's post was. There are many words that have more meanings than a dictionary has in them, especially when it comes to popular culture (such as the internet). Rant is one such word, which can mean a lot more than your basic dictionary definition.