This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » Asking a question to answer a question (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Asking a question to answer a question
Femme Folle
Member
Member # 25

 - posted      Profile for Femme Folle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Does it drive me crazy? Yes, it does.

(I've just read a news article in which some military guy is being interviewed about possible terrorist cells in the US.)

quote:
As for attacks, he added: ''Am I concerned that this will happen this summer? I have to be concerned that it could happen any day.''
Have we done this before? I don't know.
Posts: 18278 | From: the cattery | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Do I totally agree with you? Yes I do. If you'd told me 10 years ago that people would still be using this annoying sentence construction in 2007, would I have believed you? No, I'd have said you were crazy. Will people ever stop this stupidity? Probably not.
Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Obviously we don't know whether FF's quote is verbatim, but sometimes writers attribute their question to the subject, for an easier narrative flow.

So the passage FF quotes might have also read: "Asked whether he was concerned that this would happen this summer, he said: 'I have to be concerned that it could happen any day.'"

I don't like that device, and never use it, because it makes the subject look foolish.

Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ant259
Member
Member # 1734

 - posted      Profile for ant259     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And what about this awful habit of a lot of people's to use question intonation when they're not asking a question? As in "..so I went down to that new shop? The one next-door to the carpet warehouse?" Is it because they are so insecure as to need approval for and/or confirmation of everything they say? Or is it because they're Australian or (gulp - here goes) American?
Posts: 1653 | From: Oviedo | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Purple Cow
Member
Member # 50

 - posted      Profile for The Purple Cow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yep it's called AQI. Australian Questioning Intonation. Deeply irritating I agree.
Posts: 5801 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bored Of The Dance
Member
Member # 6347

 - posted      Profile for Bored Of The Dance     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It is even more irritating when combined with talking in the third person.

The question intonation is called high rising terminal/intonation Stephen Fry hates it as well and called it Australian Question Intonation

I don't know though, I watch Neighbours every day and I don't think I use it and I ususally pick speech inflections quite easily

Posts: 3647 | From: the desk of the Chairman | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ursus arctos
Member
Member # 1452

 - posted      Profile for ursus arctos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The first thing was a major feature of Donald Rumsfeld's "style" when he was Secretary of Defense. And it wasn't just an annoying tic, it was a conscious tactic to create the illusion of a dialogue when in fact he would never entertain any serious questions. The guy FF quotes sounds like a Rumsfeld protege.

The AQI bit is new to me, but sounds maddening. There may be some elements of it in American "Valley Talk" and its progeny, but it isn't a primary characteristic.

Posts: 18670 | From: mediolanum | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
brian potter
Member
Member # 691

 - posted      Profile for brian potter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That cunt Chris Hollins has driven me to boycott bbc news in the morning with his delivery of the sports news.

His standard patter is always a statement of his own subjective thought, followed by a "Why?" then a loose precis of the actual facts.

When the news readers started copying him I had to call it a day. Why? Because it's fucking moronic.

Posts: 1402 | From: your father's hand that always seemed like a fist | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ginger Yellow
Member
Member # 447

 - posted      Profile for Ginger Yellow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The first thing was a major feature of Donald Rumsfeld's "style" when he was Secretary of Defense. And it wasn't just an annoying tic, it was a conscious tactic to create the illusion of a dialogue when in fact he would never entertain any serious questions.
I don't think it was so much to create an illusion of dialogue so much as to defuse awkward questions. He'd always take a reasonable question and rework so it sounded absurd and easily dismissable.

 -

Posts: 12612 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ursus arctos
Member
Member # 1452

 - posted      Profile for ursus arctos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Along similar lines, have any of you seen some clips for Attorney General Gonzales' contemptuous performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday? Even the Republicans couldn't take it.

Here's an article from the Washington Post.

quote:
Gonzales, Senators Spar on Credibility
Account of Meeting In '04 Is Challenged

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A01


Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified yesterday that top congressional leaders from both parties agreed in March 2004 to continue a classified surveillance activity that Justice Department officials had deemed illegal, a contention immediately disputed by key Democratic lawmakers.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), who were briefed on the program at the time, said there was no consensus that it should proceed. Three others who were at the meeting also said the legal underpinnings of the program were never discussed.

"He once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller said of the embattled attorney general.

The dispute came as Gonzales weathered one of the most contentious and hostile congressional hearings seen during the Bush administration. Democrats and the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee accused him of repeatedly misleading them and warned that he could face perjury charges if he lied to the panel.

"I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who became visibly angry at several points during his exchanges with Gonzales. "The committee's going to review your testimony very carefully to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) told Gonzales bluntly: "I don't trust you."

The session was a political low point for the attorney general, whose reputation has eroded over the past seven months in Congress, in public opinion polls and among many of his own employees.

Gonzales has found himself in the middle of a running controversy over his department's firing of nine U.S. attorneys, and the White House has refused to provide documents and testimony that House and Senate lawmakers have demanded. Gonzales has also been accused of making misleading statements about issues including FBI civil liberties abuses and a warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency.

Specter appeared to raise the stakes for Gonzales and the administration yesterday by suggesting that a special prosecutor may be needed to file contempt charges against the White House officials who have refused to honor congressional subpoenas.

Much of yesterday's to-and-fro involved a controversial episode on the evening of March 10, 2004, when Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. visited the hospital bed of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was recovering from gallbladder surgery.

Gonzales, providing his first detailed public account of the incident, testified that the visit followed an emergency meeting that afternoon with the "Gang of Eight," consisting of the bipartisan leaders of the House, the Senate and both intelligence committees. Gonzales said the congressional leaders had agreed that a classified surveillance program aimed at terrorists should continue despite objections by James B. Comey, the acting attorney general during Ashcroft's illness.

"Mr. Comey had informed us that he would not approve the continuation of a very important intelligence activity, despite the fact the department had repeatedly approved those activities over a period of over two years," Gonzales said. "The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now. . . . We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership."

Gonzales said that he and Card "never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," adding that Ashcroft was "lucid" and did most of the talking during the meeting. Gonzales acknowledged that, as Comey testified, Ashcroft declined to overrule Comey.

Gonzales's testimony differed from an account Comey provided to the same committee in May. Comey said that he had rushed to the hospital after learning that Gonzales was headed there, and that he believed Gonzales and Card sought "to take advantage of a very sick man." Comey did not mention any discussion in the room about the congressional leadership's views.

Pelosi, Rockefeller and former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who were members of the Gang of Eight at the time, also sharply disputed Gonzales's description of the White House meeting. Daschle said in a statement that he could not recall the meeting and is "quite certain that at no time did we encourage the AG or anyone else to take such actions." He added: "This appears to be another attempt to rewrite history."

Rockefeller said that lawmakers were never asked to give the program their approval and that administration officials' infrequent briefings about it were short and involved "virtually no questions."

The Bush administration has repeatedly refused to describe which classified program was at issue, but officials have said privately that it is related to a warrantless counterterrorism surveillance effort by the NSA, which the president confirmed after aspects of it were leaked to the public. Gonzales has said several times that the disputed program was not precisely the same as what Bush confirmed.

Three people who were present, but who declined to be identified discussing classified activities, said the March 2004 meeting in the White House Situation Room was an operational briefing on the NSA surveillance program. The legal underpinnings of the program were never discussed, they said, but the congressional group raised no objections and agreed that the program should go forward, they said.

The issue came to a head during a heated exchange between Gonzales and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) about a statement Gonzales made at a news conference in June, suggesting that the hospital visit did involve the NSA program that Bush confirmed. Gonzales testified that he misspoke and cited clarifying remarks that one of his aides sent to The Washington Post several days after the news conference.

At the hearing, Gonzales said he intends to stay on as attorney general to "fix the problems" that occurred on his watch, including the improper use of political considerations in hiring career employees. He declined to answer questions related to the prosecutor firings and the legal dispute between Congress and the White House, saying he was recused from discussing those issues because of an ongoing investigation by his department.

Gonzales received relatively little assistance from the handful of Republicans who showed up yesterday. The lone Republican who stayed for the duration was Specter, whose commentary was as harsh as that of Democrats. Specter's opening question was about whether the hospital visit concerned the NSA program, prompting Gonzales's first attempt to convince his listeners that it did not.

"Mr. Attorney General, do you expect us to believe that?" Specter asked incredulously.



Posts: 18670 | From: mediolanum | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ginger Yellow
Member
Member # 447

 - posted      Profile for Ginger Yellow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Even with all that, I'm willing to bet a lot of money that Specter wouldn't vote no-confidence.
Posts: 12612 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ginger Yellow
Member
Member # 447

 - posted      Profile for Ginger Yellow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I particularly liked the Comey part. "It's OK, he wasn't talking about that illegal eavesdropping programme. He was talking about a another illegal eavesdropping programme." Incidentally, and it really goes without saying, either he's lying or he's saying Bush is a liar, since when Bush was asked about Comey's remarks he made clear it was the same NSA programme.
Posts: 12612 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Femme Folle
Member
Member # 25

 - posted      Profile for Femme Folle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The session was a political low point for the attorney general, whose reputation has eroded over the past seven months in Congress, in public opinion polls and among many of his own employees.
Why won't the fucker do the right thing and resign, if Bush won't fire him?
Posts: 18278 | From: the cattery | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tee-Rex
Member
Member # 609

 - posted      Profile for Tee-Rex     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Have we done this before? I don't know
I only remember my own threads, so - yes, we have. It was 2004, so you're forgiven for forgetting.

AQI, like most things people see as Australian, is done better (worse?) in New Zillun, as the wiki link above suggests. Less drawl, more rising. I'm not sure how I can demonstrate this on a keyboard though. Just believe me, eh?

Posts: 3795 | From: tomorrow, your time | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ursus arctos
Member
Member # 1452

 - posted      Profile for ursus arctos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Those two options are of course not mutually exclusive.

I've stopped paying close attention, but I was genuinely shocked by his utter contempt for the process and was quite surprised that Schumer didn't pull out the "Have you no shame?" quote.

Posts: 18670 | From: mediolanum | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there