On Monday 14 April 2008 06:07, Adam Buckland wrote: > Michael said that it was a Muslim, I said that there was no proof in the > article that it was a Muslim. > > Either show me in the article where it says that the murderer was a > Muslim or accept that Michael is wrong in his statement.
Hi Adam! Such a false dilemma. It doesn't have to say anything about any fact in the article for it to be a fact. You concluded one way, Michael concluded another. In a while we will know who is correct. > On Monday 14 April 2008 05:31, Adam Buckland wrote: > > Where is the prejudice in my statement? > Your prejudice is in your conclusion that a one percent chance of > something -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
