CDZ Does Spicer know what he's talking about? Does he know what's going on? I doubt it.

[Compost]

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

I am not referring to the literal job description of spokes mouth but to what the spokes mouths show us while on the job. It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall. This pattern has been apparent regardless of the party in power at the moment. I realize you wish to focus on Spicer, but I do not find him any different than others in his position.

It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall.

Well, that's really a matter of completeness, and as such legit to note. That politicians and their staff are incomplete in their disclosure is also somewhat bothersome to me, but I know it's tantamount to asking them to walk on water to be both complete and 100% accurate with whatever he does say.

I am shooting for the easier thing to accomplish....there are no real constraints on simply saying what one knows is wholly so, not saying what one doesn't know to be so, or at least saying one is unsure if one doesn't doesn't know X to be wholly so and one, for some reason, feels obliged to say X.

Sure, common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

I am not referring to the literal job description of spokes mouth but to what the spokes mouths show us while on the job. It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall. This pattern has been apparent regardless of the party in power at the moment. I realize you wish to focus on Spicer, but I do not find him any different than others in his position.

It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall.

Well, that's really a matter of completeness, and as such legit to note. That politicians and their staff are incomplete in their disclosure is also somewhat bothersome to me, but I know it's tantamount to asking them to walk on water to be both complete and 100% accurate with whatever he does say.

I am shooting for the easier thing to accomplish....there are no real constraints on simply saying what one knows is wholly so, not saying what one doesn't know to be so, or at least saying one is unsure if one doesn't doesn't know X to be wholly so and one, for some reason, feels obliged to say X.

Sure, common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

What? .....You can't be serious..... Can you?

So what if they do? We're talking about Presidents and their staff. Did I lead you to think that complete honesty gives one a "pass" for all other shortcomings? If so, I apologize.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about expectations I might place on five year-olds. This conversation is not predicated on notions such as "Oh, there, there, 'Little Master Johnny.' It'll all be okay if you just tell the truth." No. The context here and the expectations I'm discussing are predicated on the notion of When "Mr. John" opens his mouth and speaks, what comes out is 100% truthful, period, and everything else follows from there. "Mr. John" may or may not catch hell for insubstantiveness of his words, that is, for not being prepared even though he did tell the truth. Whether he does or not is a wholly different matter.

The fact of the matter is that all statements are rightly judged on both those continuums.

• Is the statement factually accurate?
• Is the statement contextually accurate?
• Is the statement relevant?
• Is the statement sufficiently substantive given who uttered it?

The speaker doesn't get to exchange a "yes" in one dimension for a "no" in another. For any statement grown ups make, the answer to every one of those questions should be "yes." The answer to the last question may not always be "yes," and whether one gets criticized for it depends on what the statement's nature and who said it.

If I ask a chef what's the consequence of over kneading ground beef being used to make burgers and he tells me he doesn't know, I'll appreciate his honesty, and (not "but") if I am willing to chide him for not knowing, he'd deserve it. If on the other hand I ask him how to cook geoduck and he says he doesn't know, I would again appreciate his honesty and not feel inclined to chide him for not knowing because it's such an uncommon protein.

So now, with that out of the way, do you care to respond by addressing the expectations that are appropriate to presidents, WH press secretaries, generals, Congresspersons, and any other grown up who may have something to say? That choice is yours, but for my part, I'm not ever going to measure a grown up's performance by a "yardstick" suitable for a minor.

 

[Compost]

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

I am not referring to the literal job description of spokes mouth but to what the spokes mouths show us while on the job. It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall. This pattern has been apparent regardless of the party in power at the moment. I realize you wish to focus on Spicer, but I do not find him any different than others in his position.

It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall.

Well, that's really a matter of completeness, and as such legit to note. That politicians and their staff are incomplete in their disclosure is also somewhat bothersome to me, but I know it's tantamount to asking them to walk on water to be both complete and 100% accurate with whatever he does say.

I am shooting for the easier thing to accomplish....there are no real constraints on simply saying what one knows is wholly so, not saying what one doesn't know to be so, or at least saying one is unsure if one doesn't doesn't know X to be wholly so and one, for some reason, feels obliged to say X.

Sure, common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

What? .....You can't be serious..... Can you?

So what if they do? We're talking about Presidents and their staff. Did I lead you to think that complete honesty gives one a "pass" for all other shortcomings? If so, I apologize.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about expectations I might place on five year-olds. This conversation is not predicated on notions such as "Oh, there, there, 'Little Master Johnny.' It'll all be okay if you just tell the truth." No. The context here and the expectations I'm discussing are predicated on the notion of When "Mr. John" opens his mouth and speaks, what comes out is 100% truthful, period, and everything else follows from there. "Mr. John" may or may not catch hell for insubstantiveness of his words, that is, for not being prepared even though he did tell the truth. Whether he does or not is a wholly different matter.

The fact of the matter is that all statements are rightly judged on both those continuums.

• Is the statement factually accurate?
• Is the statement contextually accurate?
• Is the statement relevant?
• Is the statement sufficiently substantive given who uttered it?

The speaker doesn't get to exchange a "yes" in one dimension for a "no" in another. For any statement grown ups make, the answer to every one of those questions should be "yes." The answer to the last question may not always be "yes," and whether one gets criticized for it depends on what the statement's nature and who said it.

If I ask a chef what's the consequence of over kneading ground beef being used to make burgers and he tells me he doesn't know, I'll appreciate his honesty, and (not "but") if I am willing to chide him for not knowing, he'd deserve it. If on the other hand I ask him how to cook geoduck and he says he doesn't know, I would again appreciate his honesty and not feel inclined to chide him for not knowing because it's such an uncommon protein.

So now, with that out of the way, do you care to respond by addressing the expectations that are appropriate to presidents, WH press secretaries, generals, Congresspersons, and any other grown up who may have something to say? That choice is yours, but for my part, I'm not ever going to measure a grown up's performance by a "yardstick" suitable for a minor.

I'm not giving a "pass" to any one. I'm being realistic. You are departing from your own topic in order to chide on. I will not respond to your condescension.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

I am not referring to the literal job description of spokes mouth but to what the spokes mouths show us while on the job. It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall. This pattern has been apparent regardless of the party in power at the moment. I realize you wish to focus on Spicer, but I do not find him any different than others in his position.

It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall.

Well, that's really a matter of completeness, and as such legit to note. That politicians and their staff are incomplete in their disclosure is also somewhat bothersome to me, but I know it's tantamount to asking them to walk on water to be both complete and 100% accurate with whatever he does say.

I am shooting for the easier thing to accomplish....there are no real constraints on simply saying what one knows is wholly so, not saying what one doesn't know to be so, or at least saying one is unsure if one doesn't doesn't know X to be wholly so and one, for some reason, feels obliged to say X.

Sure, common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know.

What? .....You can't be serious..... Can you?

So what if they do? We're talking about Presidents and their staff. Did I lead you to think that complete honesty gives one a "pass" for all other shortcomings? If so, I apologize.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about expectations I might place on five year-olds. This conversation is not predicated on notions such as "Oh, there, there, 'Little Master Johnny.' It'll all be okay if you just tell the truth." No. The context here and the expectations I'm discussing are predicated on the notion of When "Mr. John" opens his mouth and speaks, what comes out is 100% truthful, period, and everything else follows from there. "Mr. John" may or may not catch hell for insubstantiveness of his words, that is, for not being prepared even though he did tell the truth. Whether he does or not is a wholly different matter.

The fact of the matter is that all statements are rightly judged on both those continuums.

• Is the statement factually accurate?
• Is the statement contextually accurate?
• Is the statement relevant?
• Is the statement sufficiently substantive given who uttered it?

The speaker doesn't get to exchange a "yes" in one dimension for a "no" in another. For any statement grown ups make, the answer to every one of those questions should be "yes." The answer to the last question may not always be "yes," and whether one gets criticized for it depends on what the statement's nature and who said it.

If I ask a chef what's the consequence of over kneading ground beef being used to make burgers and he tells me he doesn't know, I'll appreciate his honesty, and (not "but") if I am willing to chide him for not knowing, he'd deserve it. If on the other hand I ask him how to cook geoduck and he says he doesn't know, I would again appreciate his honesty and not feel inclined to chide him for not knowing because it's such an uncommon protein.

So now, with that out of the way, do you care to respond by addressing the expectations that are appropriate to presidents, WH press secretaries, generals, Congresspersons, and any other grown up who may have something to say? That choice is yours, but for my part, I'm not ever going to measure a grown up's performance by a "yardstick" suitable for a minor.

I'm not giving a "pass" to any one. I'm being realistic. You are departing from your own topic in order to chide on. I will not respond to your condescension.

I'm not giving a "pass" to any one. I'm being realistic.

And I responded that for telling the truth and not knowing that which one in a principal's position should know, one may very well receive criticism and/or complaints about one's not knowing, and I explained how and why it is that if one does receive that type of feedback, one would deserve it.

FWIW, the frame of mind I had when writing that post was not one of condescension, but rather one of surprised incredulity (thus the confused dude emoticons....Is this not the condescending emoticon?

) over your implicit expression of fatalistic apathy: "Sure, common sense cries out for the spokes mouth to say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know. Then there would be complaints that he doesn't know." That's why I asked, "So what?" Do you and I not concur that it is better to face ridicule for not knowing what one should than to face it for being untruthful?