On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:35:11PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > But may I point you to the fact that Joel just > > tried to start such a discussion (albeit only in a side note to a side > > note)? You didn't show that this was irrational (except by assertion > > that it is not possible to rationally discuss the meaning of the word > > "problems"). > > It is not necessary to show that a non-obvious assertion with no > rationale is irrational. The only appropriate response to a > disconnected assertion, such as the one he introduced, is to assert > that it is wrong and indicate the correct one. Anything less is to > encourage the propagation of an incorrect meme; anything more is a > waste of time. Anybody who is interested in discussing the issue will > then proceed to discuss it; anybody who is not will demonstrate this > fact in a fairly obvious manner (around here, usually denoted by > pointless rants and ad-hominem arguments), several examples of which > can be seen in this thread.
Because, as we all know, trimming the rationale and the examples given of
why there is an issue renders the assertion both non-obvious and without
rationale.
I stand in awe of your techniques. You're quite sure you won't be running
for a US Congressional seat sometime soon?
--
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
