On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for > > > >got to do with reducing emissions? > > > > > > They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in > > > the article referenced) is unrealistic. > > > > You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is > >difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non > >sequitar, of course, but hey. > > <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur>:
<snip> Please tell me you didn't have to look that up. Or do you just have such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand the conversation that is taking place? > It seems to me that pointing out a significant > problem with the implementation of a proposal > which was not addressed in the proposal is indeed > clearly related to the proposal. Of course. But, again, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Is basic reading comprehension too much to ask? Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
