Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stephen,
If we ever sit down in some hypothetical cafe, remind me to have a talk with you about how to present an argument for best effect. :-)
Once I got past some of your phrasing, which I consider somewhat
injudiciously selected considering your likely audience,
Hang on a tick - I have to look this one up!
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/injudiciously
WorldNet Dictionary:
Definition: [adv] in an injudicious manner; "these intelligence tests were used injudiciously for many years" Antonyms: judiciously
Zut .. we are looking for the inverse defintion!
Webster's 1913 Dictionary Definition: \Ju*di"cious*ly\, adv. In a judicious manner; with good judgment; wisely.
Oh no - without good judjement or wisdom. Finally it all falls into place!
it occurred to me that although you say that you disagree with Berin, you end up saying largely the same thing that Berin did. As Berin just said to you, it seemed to him that you "might be violently agreeing", despite your starting your argument with "I'm going to disagree with you!"
I think that Berin and I are aiming at the same objective and have very similar motives. I happen to think that we can leverage and utilize the contribution of Berin's process by analysing his concers and underlying interests and drawing from that the essence that is intrinsically important to policy, while preserving, and maintain the liberty he is persuing. I remain confident that Berin will be more than happy to share a XXXX, Fosters, Southark (?), Redback, or (that other one that I cannot remember) should the opportunity arise.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
