On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:12:24PM -0700, Tom Ballard wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote: > > On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote: > > > > > > it's becoming a distinction without a difference > > > > > WTF is this supposed to mean? > > > > Starting to think Tom is on this list for flaming only > > Wasn't intended as a flame, in the sense of personally attacking the > poster. (As opposed to my earlier posts!) > > The phrase "distinction without a difference means" two things are > different but not in any way important to the discussion at hand. > > The distinction here being lethality; the "without a difference" being > disruption to the normal course of events. Um. Can't speak for everyone else, but I think that being dead would be somewhat more disruptive to my "normal course of events" than having my mailbox flooded. I'm left wondering what kind of person could seriously claim that there's no significant difference between the deliberate killing of civilians and junk mail. Klaus is making pretty good sense, though perhaps flamebait would be more accurate than flame. The term 'troll' springs to mind, though I'd really like to be wrong about that. -- ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------. > -ScruLoose- | I do not agree with what you have to say, < > Please do not | but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. < > reply off-list. | - Voltaire < `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpCrWWMiTFDc.pgp
Description: PGP signature