[WikiEN-l] Another rule literalism problem

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/13/2008 9:46:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
snowspinner at gmail.com writes:

I mean,  I do not see how we can justify making the position Ken is  
holding  here one we demand sources for. It is demonstrably a less  
difficult  and complex inference than ones we allow by default. I do  
not doubt  your good faith in asserting otherwise, but unless there's  
something  I'm missing, you are completely and utterly  wrong.>>


--------------------
Ok so he says that the katakana, hiragana, etc. transliteration is  
unambiguous, and all I have to do to counter that is to say, "No, it's actually  
ambiguous".
 
And one of those positions is more correct because ? what?  Because  someone 
says so without actually demonstrating any citation whatsoever to the  
specific or general statement.  Just their say-so.
 
That's really your position?  Because I have no idea from where a  position 
like that comes.  It's certainly not the sort of position to which  I'm 
accustomed.
 
Will Johnson



**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)