At 10:12 30-04-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > >2) Gracefully retreat from positions that prove to be in error. An > > >example of this is your claim that you never read a post you quoted > > > > Er, when did I say that? > >During the landmine debate. You used the word debunk, and then were upset >when I expected you to have a very high threshold of proof in order to >debunk an idea. I had defined debunk fairly early in the discussion and you >claimed that you should not have been expected to have read that post. When >I pointed out that you quoted from that very post, you ignored the subject. >One can see relevant discussions in posts 74167, 74172 and 74188 in the >Yahoo archives.
I reread those posts, but in the one I posted (#74712, the others were Dan's), I did not say I should not have been expected to have read a certain post. The only even remotely relevant part of that message was "Has it occured to you that there may have been other posts that were given a higher priority on my "reply to this message" list?". Further, in my reply to #74188 (message #74221) I also write "FYI, I always read all my incoming e-mail before replying to anything". It would not make sense to first say that I always read all my incoming e-mail, and then continue to say I should not be expected to have a read a certain post. Sorry, Dan, but so far you have not shown anything that can be interpreted as me saying that I should not have been expected to have read a specific post. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
