On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
context, since it was about an issue that called for serious
consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that.
Well, religion-addled
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
context, since it was about an issue that called for serious
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
context, since it was about an issue that called for serious
consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that.
Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote
On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is
typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical
to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to-
adult dynamic of seriously
At 07:27 AM 4/28/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:25:51 -0400, JDG wrote
On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is
typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical
to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote
On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for
seriously considering the opinion of other nations.
True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context,
since it was about an issue that called for serious
