-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
On 4/13/07,
Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
on
4/13/07 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman(a)gmail.com wrote:
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a
particular issue. If somebody
voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the
opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be
"non-sequitur".
Thanks, Ron, and you're right. Some may see this as nitpicky, but this is a
crucial distinction. "Worthless" is a powerful word when used in reference
to any aspect of a person.
As to your example, their response of "Scorpio" in that situation could be
met with "huh?" :-)
Okay, let's get nitpicky. If we assume for the sake of discussion that
their response of "Scorpio" is not worthless, we are assuming that it is
worth something. What exactly would such a response be worth? What
value would it have?
For the record, I maintain that it would add nothing, would contribute
no value, and would be, in fact, worthless.
- --
Sean Barrett | Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
sean(a)epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGH5NZ/SVOiq2uhHMRAo7hAJ4oTkVoDtldlC+JQ3ex+Yzz3g0tBgCghb2h
X+ND8u/ljf7Z4ysjKCJeCh0=
=FYLC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----