This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case" for my position?
All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that they must try to indicate public support for that position. It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to assert the "rightness" of their opinon. But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > be able to understand you if they did. snip > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. >
