Carol,

please follow sometimes your own advice and don't put words into my mouth. I have never told you what your opinions are for I cannot know them, I have only told you what my perception of your opinions is. You can correct that then if you want.

And because I do not know what your opinions are I quote you and do not rephrase you. I would appreciate if you could do the same in future, for your attempts to rephrase me are too often completely off the mark, like in the example in the first paragraph. Had you quoted me with my remark Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias in this thread, everybody could have seen how irrelevant that remark is to the theme of this thread. The rephrasing a bias on this subject gives, intentionally or not, the wrong impression. May I repeat my question why you did consider my remark as relevant in this thread here?

A bias means a built-in tendency to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way. (McGrath)

I disagree, except in a very very narrow sense. In a two-choice situation and a single bias I agree. But most times, life is much more complicated. Most people whether they admit it or not have much more biases than just one and in most situations there are many more than two choices.

In the very simple case, existence of Israel or not (a much two easy two-choice situation) my bias would lead me ceteris paribus (which is an overly artificial assumption) to opt for the existence of Israel. However, I usually have also an in-built bias for the underdog, a bias for peaceful fights, a bias for human rights, a bias for compromise instead of domination and so on. In any real life situation some biases weigh on one side and some on the other.

'Against Bush' does not mean I have to be pro terrorists. That's the thinking of 'Uncle Sam' and his ilk. You usually have not such a simplistic black and white thinking, McGrath.

To make an overly simple example and also to mock Carol's paraphrasing instead of quoting I could say here that Carol has stated openly her pro terrorist bias. Huh, you might say, for you do not recollect anything similar to that rephrasing. The 'inference' is simple: Carol has stated the opinion that it is the US government that is putting the lives of all my family members in danger (she has said the same about Israel's government by the way). Well, at least for me, if I see my life and that of my family in danger, I must admit to a certain bias against those I perceive as the origin of that danger. So she has an anti-Bush bias. That means, applying your thinking, in all conflicts with Bush involved she will have a pro-his enemy bias. The terrorists are his enemies (or that of the American government) and therefore she has a pro-terrorist bias. Silly simple thinking in black and white.

But to end this post with a more conciliatory move, McGrath, let me quote you approvingly:

And respondintg to a criticism of someone you admire by pointing off into the distance to someone you think the person who made the criticism might admire is never a valid way of arguing.

Once we have dealt with a criticism, by either disproving it, or accepting it, then talking about the faults of someone else is fair enough. But not until then

Very wise words.

Wolfgang