On 2008-06-05, Mark Madsen <mark.s.madsen+news******.com> wrote:
>
> For the sake of this discussion: you made a statement subject to
> correction. You seem to be taking it very hard.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Frankly, I see nothing in my responses that would allow any reasonable person
to arrive at this conclusion. If you want to provide suitable examples, be my
guest. I'd be more than happy to show you why you're wrong.


>>>> ...which evaluates to: for the sake of illustration, for the sake of
>>>> discussion....for God's sake.
>>>
>>> Your position is understood perfectly. Whatever you say is to be taken
>>> as correct, regardless of its actual correctness or otherwise.
>>
>> I'll bet if I tell you I had a ton of paperwork on my office desk today
>> to clear up, you would argue that I'm must be a liar...because...no one
>> makes an office desk that can support or contain a ton of paperwork.
>
> The analogy is useless.

The analogy is on point. The problem you have is that in your myopic view of
informal discussion the analogy cannot be on point.

>> You are a figuratively challenged human being and I mean that in a
>> literal sense.
>
> This abuse, technically inaccurate as it is, is only an attempt to change
> the subject.

Let me see if I understand: I say your figuratively challenged and that
constitutes abuse. However you comment on my nature and personality . . .

>>> Whatever you say is to be taken
>>> as correct, regardless of its actual correctness or otherwise.

and that is not abuse. Exactly what was my sin: I was less subtle.


ken