At 07:28 PM Friday 9/14/2007, Martin Lewis wrote:
>On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > >  What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for
> > > > >got to do with reducing emissions?
> > > >
> > > > They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in
> > > > the article referenced) is unrealistic.
> > >
> > >  You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is
> > >difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non
> > >sequitar, of course, but hey.
> >
> > <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur>:
>
><snip>
>
>  Please tell me you didn't have to look that up.



No.  (I even knew how to spell it without looking it up.)  I did 
wonder if perhaps there was some definition of the term which I was 
not thinking of which would explain why discussion of the problems 
with the proposal could be considered a non sequitur.  The definition 
I quoted suggests that there is not.



>Or do you just have
>such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand
>the conversation that is taking place?



No.  I failed to understand why you thought the response I (and 
others) made was a non sequitur.  As I said previously, to me (and 
apparently to some others here), discussion of obvious problems with 
the proposal to meet emission goals by banning all automotive traffic 
in the city seems quite clearly related to the topic.  If you feel 
that such discussion is not clearly related to the topic, perhaps you 
could help us out by explaining why it is not.



> > It seems to me that pointing out a significant
> > problem with the implementation of a proposal
> > which was not addressed in the proposal is indeed
> > clearly related to the proposal.
>
>  Of course. But, again, this has nothing to do with the matter at
>hand.



I disagree.  Why do you think it has nothing to do with the matter at hand?



>Is basic reading comprehension too much to ask?



Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes "basic reading 
comprehension" here.  If so, could you perhaps clarify?


-- Ronn!  :)



_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to