--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > I just helped circulate that in another post. > > > > > > > > It is ambiguous, but I am not sure which slant was meant. > The "by > > > > definition" "proof" isn't definative IMO. It needs > clarification by > > > > Wilson -- which I assume he will provide today. > > > > > > > > > > I assume that he spoke int he same way as people say "the minute > this > > > happened, this was so..." > > > > I assume Wilson meant this too. But lets try something revolutionary > > -- Lets ask him. Or let him clarify it. Before we fanatatically > > declare a particular interpretation as 100% certain as to what he > meant. > > > > I can think of other reasonable interpretations. > > Perhaps one of these others is the correct one, but since you ALSO > thought that this was what he meant,
> why did you quote an article > that argued the alternate point-of-view as though it was more valid > than what you now say you already thought was the most likely > interpretation? Refresh my memory on what article that was. But in general, I LIKE mutiple points of view as input. So I may quote various sources. I don't get you point, "argued the alternativee point-of-view as though it was more valid ". i think that may be an intereptation, of how you may have "sized-up" my position. As a general point, its funny to watch where people debate and appear to size op and make grand assuptions about a persons entire position based on one or two comments. When both sides do it it can be quite funny. Each side lobbing grenades at phantom issues they see lurking on the other guys side. Like the other day, BZ appears (I am not sure and hold no hard and firm opinions of where he is coming from) to think I am a Fox news zealot, right wing dogmatic because I questioned his IMO distortion of neo-con philosophy. I am not a neo-con, I don't like a lot of their stuff, I dislike fox news, my views are quite across the board -- not boxed into a particular party's talking points. A small parody to illustrate X: Hitler was a canibal and slept with his mother. Y: No, I don't think either are really true. X: why the hell are you defending Hitler. He was evil incarnate. why are you defending evil? What evil has gotten into you? Y: I am not defending Hitler, I just said I dont think the facts support that he was a cannibal or an incestor. X: You can try to twist your squirmy way out of this usingyour perverted evil logic, but you are defending Hitler and should be lynched. Y: um.... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
