Erik said: > > Well, it's not quite random. It's relevant, in the way I argued. Do you > > disagree with the conclusions I drew from it? > > Yes. As I said, it is irrelevant. Maybe I should have been less > glib. I'll try again. You had my interest until you started quoting > irrelevant statistics. Then you lost it. It is better to give no > statistics that irrelvant statistics. If you want to make a point to me, > you'll need to quote relevant statistics. Otherwise, I will probably bow > out of the discussion.
Fair enough. But glib is also thowing back an argument in someone's face without explanation, to my mind. I don't mind you taking issue with my extrapolations (and I note you've not taken issue with anything else I raised in my original mail). I fully admitted what I'd said wasn't *directly* applicable as soon as you and others asked. My point, however, I think still stands. Which was that 60% of the US population earn les than twice the minimum wage, or thereabouts. And the fact that they aren't a one-parent family doesn't mean that it's easy for a single person with no kids to survive. If you want to take issue with that, fair enough, I'm interested to hear your views on this. I'm not claiming I know everything about the matter. But coming at me all verbal guns blazing isn't convincing. Convince me that the orginal stat was irrelevant. I don't want a slanging match here, I want to learn. And if I'm sure enough about my position, then to educate. But believe me when I say I'm feel on the back foot. Rik. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
