On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +0000, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Andrew Suffield] > > "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat > > babies or not. He probably does, lock him up". > > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run > with it: > > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we > have an orange-haired person, and babies keep disappearing. While > there is still some argument on the point of whether or not it is > acceptible to keep losing our babies, most of us agree that this is a > Bad Thing. Maybe it is time to take steps to keep the babies away from > the orange-haired person, you know, see if that makes a difference." I think you just made my point better than I did. I don't want to live in that society. It was s/gamers/orange hair/ and s/violent/like to eat babies/, btw. > > > Is this just a game to you? Did you think there were judges on the > > > sidelines keeping notes about who was using the wrong standard of > > > proof, or making unwarranted assumptions? It's not a game to the ones > > > who started this thread. > > > > "It's not a game, therefore the rules (of logic) do not apply". > > More like - there comes a point where calling people on the carpet for > what amount to technicalities is counter-productive and useless. So an invalid argument is just a technicality? It's okay to be wrong? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature