On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:02:32AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > Arguing against the premise is arguing that there is no such thing as > rude behavior.
No, I was arguing that there is more than one definition of rude behavior, which is not the same as "no such thing". "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" does not mean that there is no such thing as beauty, just no absolute beauty. > Arguing against the statement would be arguing that rude behavior may > be an expression of an idea. Behavior that some would consider rude may be an expression of an idea. > If you don't accept the premise, you cannot logically argue against > the original statement. Sure you can. It is called "hypothetical" or "thought experiment". "If ____ , then it follows that...." > Nobody ever suggested removing people from the list for "upsetting" > anyone. Wrong. Several people suggested removing Mark from the list because he upset them (even if they didn't use that word, that was the basic reason). >I think you could come up with better words to describe situations in >which the possibility of removal was raised. Possibly, but only marginally better. Upset is a fair description. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
