A bizarre comment by U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the hunt for Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction has been awarded the "Foot in Mouth" prize by the Plain English Campaign.Rumsfeld, renowned for his uncompromising tough talking, received the prize for the most baffling comment by a public figure.
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld told a press briefing.
"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
I found this funny because, well, I'm not stupid. Rumsfeld is stating a fairly straightforward and obvious idea, but because the audience is comprised of moron journalists whose job it is to take the few basic things they can understand and dumb them down even more, Rumsfeld is described as "bizarre" and "baffling".
The next time you are reading news analysis, remember that journalists find "baffling" ideas that a smart junior high student would find obvious.
They should''ve gone with the runner-up.
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
From Suzanne Fields
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
You can''t be serious right? It''s worded poorly. It makes sense, but really sounds baffling. They''re talking about how he said it, not what he said. It''s bizarre, or do people around you talk like this all the time? There''s confusing confused, unconfusing confused, unconfusing unconfused, and confusing unconfused. Rumsfield is the latter. Or maybe I could''ve just said that he knows what he''s talking about but phrased it in a confusing way.
Though I agree with Rat Boy, Arnold should''ve won. That quote never ceases to crack me up.
I also love the sweeping generalizations you make about journalists simply because you disagree with this one. Or is that just a chip on your shoulder?
You mean you actually have to pay attention to follow what someone is saying? Sacrilege! All politicians should speak so that no one is confused, ever. They should never use words larger than 2 syllables, they should never talk about science or philosophy, and they should never expect that what they say will only make sense only to those who actually listen and give thought! Mindlessness should no longer have to be its own reward!
I am firmly of the opinion that most journalists couldn''t get analysis right if the story was about themselves, and that most news anchors are just actors too dumb to remember lines. This opinion is the result of years of observation, and I would be surprised if most people didn''t agree with me...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I have a better idea. Let''s just say that from now on, if someone in the Republican administrations says anything, we can''t criticize them no matter how silly they worded their statement.
But, if someone from a Democratic administration says anything that could be remotely duplicitous or oddly phrased, we need to rip the hell out of them with a good old roasting hosted by Triumph the Insult Dog.
That work better?
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
Criticize away. But why do you assume that your (or anyone''s) criticism should be free from comment?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Oh, this is good. You make great arguments...
...
FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Ah, you put the words right into my mouth.
*ahem* Anyway, what my commentary was directed at was the seemingly double standard your comments on here seem to apply regarding statements made by politicians. And by ""here"", I''m not referring to this thread in particular, just a trend I''ve noticed over time.
But regarding the award this thread was talking about, I agree that Schwarzenegger''s (sic, I can''t spell his name) comment is far sillier than Rumsfeld''s tongue-tying trippy talk.
Here''s why Rumsfeld''s comment is pointed out as baffling. Not because he used any of those big words with multiple syllables, like Bush and his words like ""exemplorary"" which have so many syllables I can''t understand them, stupid non-rightie that I am. Maybe if they matched up with the words in my dictionary here when I try to look them up...
But anyway, I digress.
Rumsfeld''s comment that that reporter that that article was written by that you linked to, well... see how silly a sentence can seem when the words are just used to repetitively? Grammatically, that series of that''s is quite understandable, but it would be better to reword my statement if I was vying for clarity here.
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
Awright! Triumph did show up!
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
How about an example of this double-standard?
A couple of things. First of all, the concept of ""known knowns"" vs. ""known unknowns"" or ""unknown unknowns"" isn''t something Rumsfeld came up with. The concepts are widely used in the military, the intelligence community - even in business. Apparently soldiers and salesmen can understand them but reporters and scholars cannot.
And are you really telling me that the describing of a concept which has repetitive terminology isreallythe worst offense of mangled speech they could find last year? Sounds like somebody has a double standard and it isn''t me...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
It might not be the worst one from last year, but you have to admit it does come off as horribly convoluted.
Actually, I''d be more interested in finding out what he finds so fascinating about reports that state that ""Nothing Happened!"", and how those mangled words correlate to that. Alas, I''m too lazy to find out for myself.
Also, lol at this bit:
Do you read Sutter Cane?
Ral, please read our posts. We aren''t saying we don''t understand what he''s saying. Neither do the journalists. They are saying it was a very confusing and bizarre way of putting it. That''s it.
You''re putting words in everyone''s mouth again. We both agree that it wasn''t the worst thing said this year, in fact everyone agreed that Arnold''s comment was much worse/funnier.
What''s even worse is that you''re attacking us and journalists everywhere for the selection of Rumsfeld for this award when it''s the Plain English Campaign who selected it. Also, in previous years had as many actors as politicians chosen. Please somehow make that into a double standard.
And you nitpick Rat Boy''s every word like an old married couple. Yet Rumsfeld''s bizarre phrasing is beyond reproach. That''s one example of a double standard.
I knew it! He''s been seeing Rummy on the side! That does it!
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
How is it bizarre? Was he doing a little dance? Is there a chicken reference in the quote I am missing? And how is it ""confusing""? It must not be too confusing, since as you said, everybody understands what he is saying. I''m a little confused by your bizarre definitions of ""bizarre"" and ""confusing"".
He is repetitive, but as I said, the concept is phrased that way. I guess I don''t see how a straightforward and obvious concept is ""confusing"" or ""bizarre"" just because it uses repetitive wording.
Farscry likes it when I put words in his mouth (see above).
I would respond to you, but if we keep going back and forth, you''ll start posting about how you and I are like an old married couple, and simultaneously criticizing something while you are doing might get confusing for you
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
What was your first clue? Late at night when you''re *ahem* intimate you hear him scream ""Invade me, Rummy! I''m a dirty, dirty terrorist!"" in the heat of passion?
*edit* I''d just like to apologize for the awful picture I just put in everybody''s head.
Does it say something bad about me that I immediately took this statement and leaped to a joke about it in a sexual nature?
I''ve been participating in that orgasm thread in the Everything Else forum too much... Naughty Farscry! Naughty! *swatting myself with a rolled up newspaper*
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
Certis? The sword, if you don''t mind...
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
It is unnecessarily repetitive. That is confusing - you can try to belittle everyone who finds it confusing all you want but the facts of the matter are that it obfuscates the concept, unecessarily to boot.
It is bizarre because it is not something you hear in everyday conversation. It is odd to hear someone repeat something so often and unnecissarily.
I''m only putting these here to save you the trouble, in case your next post ridicules my interpretations of bizarre and confusing.
Cute, however it wasn''t the back and forth that was the part I was calling attention to, but the nitpicking. His choice of wording, grammar, ect. are very often called to attention by you in an argument, yet an unnecissarily repetitive choice of words said by someone you like is beyond reproach.
Not unnecessarily. I guess you guys keep missing the point that he was communicating an established concept:
I don''t know what you guys do for a living, but sometimes concepts you use in your work might sound funny, confusing, or bizarre to those outside the profession. Pyro, if you worked with computers you would know this.
""Knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns"" is actually a neat idea, made even more so by the fact that its repetition forces you to think about what it really means. Guess that''s too much work for some people...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Let''s get to the point. Why is this news? First, the statement was said in 2002, so it shouldn''t qualify for a 2003 award. Second, why is this news? It''s news because the liberal media thinks it is ""interesting"".
New sig!!
Hello my baby!!!
Isn''t it in the news cause it''s easy to copy/paste? I mean here these people went to all the trouble to look through all of the statements...
And Richard Gere won last year. Isn''t he so far left, he''s kind of wrapped back around and gone left again? So it''s not exactly biased towards right or left, unless they switch off every other year.
Xbox One: GWJRoo
Origin: gwjroo
Steam ID
It is terribly worded, unclear, and the first sentence doesn''t seem to be linked to the sentiment at all. It speaks volumes to me about anyone who would defend this statement as being clear or well-considered.
I mean really, that strikes anyone as a concise statement? He uses a form of the word know five times in fourteen words. One in every three words is ''know''! That''s miserable English, particularly since ''we'' is repeated three times in tandem. Though I really don''t see what the fuss is about either way, how it makes any sort of difference, but to defend it as being straightforward ... no afraid not.
Though, on the upside, I''m beginning to see how you think Dubya is eloquent. {for clarity''s sake, that last jab is delivered in the spirit of loving and Christmas}
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
That''s why I don''t get up at press conferences and expect reporters to understand jargon describing parameters to the IDE controller module in the linux kernel that control DMA speeds, and the associated hdparm program used to modify these parameters at run-time using the /proc filesystem. If I ever said that to someone who wasn''t familiar with computers and Linux specifically, it would be considered confusing and bizarre. I also don''t consider people simple minded and slow witted simply because they don''t understand what I said.
Again, you belittling anyone who disagrees with you doesn''t make you right. That''s pretty ridiculous to insinuate that the reptition forces you to think about what it really means. It''s like implying that it''s a good idea to speak in pig-latin because it forces you to really think about the words you''re saying. You''re actually proving my point, it was odd enough that you actually have to think about it more than usual in order for it to make sense. This also implies that it''s not clear enough to be understood without having to put more effort than is usually necessary into the sentence. Therefore it''s bizarre and confusing. Thanks for agreeing!
The distinction is that the same idea could have been expressed a lot more naturally and easily in a few thousand different ways. The lines that Ral seems most enamored with are those that actually make the least sense, not because they are some cryptographic menagerie of well worded thought, but because they are filled with repetitious ambiguity and disjunction.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
Exactly. And if you did try to explain those concepts, do you think you should be attacked as putting your foot in your mouth? Sorry guys - just because the audience (whether the media, the Plain English Society, or you) isn''t familiar with a concept, and the concept requires concentration to follow (I guess you all think math professors are ""confusing and bizarre"") doesn''t mean that the person articulating that concept is the one at fault...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
It''s just bad commentary on his part. It''s not a complicated statement he made, it''s just a botched effort on his part.
I really can''t begin to understand why you''d defend it? A) it''s not a big deal and b) it''s so obviously bad that to defend it as being complex and meaningful above the lowly mind of the media is just bizarre.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
This is worse than that time Dan Quayle spelled potato with an e. We should all join with Charles Rangel and call for Rumsfeld''s immediate resignation.
From the Economist:
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.