Tony said:
You asked them? Anybody can play this bloody silly game. Cut it out.
He did provide evidence to support his assertion.
No, he only gave evidence of his having made some extremely sweeping assumptions.
This proves my suspicion that Tony perpetuates this debate. Although I wrote nothing inflammatory, Tony responds with a haemorrhagic expletive. I'm not a sociologist, and my "sweeping assumptions" are based on logic and not on statistics. Tony's kneejerk reaction can only be an indication that my "sweeping assumptions" are making him uncomfortable.
JFW
____________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned by the StreamShield Protector antivirus system.
Free education for all doctors. The simple, fast way to prove you are keeping up to date. http://www.doctors.net.uk/freelearning ____________________________________________________________
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:13:30AM +0000, jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
Tony said:
You asked them? Anybody can play this bloody silly game. Cut it out.
He did provide evidence to support his assertion.
No, he only gave evidence of his having made some extremely sweeping assumptions.
This proves my suspicion that Tony perpetuates this debate. Although I wrote nothing inflammatory, Tony responds with a haemorrhagic expletive. I'm not a sociologist, and my "sweeping assumptions" are based on logic and not on statistics. Tony's kneejerk reaction can only be an indication that my "sweeping assumptions" are making him uncomfortable.
Actually, while I agree that Tony's manner is sometimes unnecessarily abrasive, he makes a good point: you've provided evidence of nothing substantive. Your argument is based in the assumption that the entire self-described Christian demographic of this world would object to a given image, which is patently absurd. If you had simply gentled your "sweeping assumptions" with something to the effect of "many of whom might find this objectionable", I'd think you had made no error in that regard, but as it stands your argument lacks support.
In short, your sweeping assumptions might make other, wholly reasonable people uncomfortable with your turn of phrase as well, even if they agree with the position you endeavor to defend.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Chad Perrin said:
Actually, while I agree that Tony's manner is sometimes unnecessarily abrasive,
For which I apologise. My horror at what I regard as exceptionally poor reasoning should not have caused me to be so cutting.
he makes a good point: you've provided evidence of nothing substantive. Your argument is based in the assumption that the entire self-described Christian demographic of this world would object to a given image, which is patently absurd.
Which is what I should have said.
The argument seems to be "the lurkers agree with me" taken to its ultimate conclusion.