You don't find anything odd in suggesting that someone who is NOT attempting to have his character perform a "daring and risky manoeuvre" clearly WANTS to have his character perform a "daring and risky manoeuvre" ?
>
>
>
>> >> And how exactly does that contradict anything I said ?
>> >
>> >Why does it have to?
>>
>> Well given the context - your insistence that your "original point
>> still stands" when it was never even contested - I think that
>there
>> is a pretty clear implication that I disagreed with it.
>
>Of course it satands, because it hasn't been contested.
It was just the way you put it. I mean it wasn't exactly phrased as an admission that nobody had even suggested such a thing.
> If it was
>still in contention it wouldn't stand, would it? I said I didn't
>think there was much more to say, because I thought we were coming to
>general agreement. Apparently we were. Yet we're still arguing. My
>head hurts.
Apparently there was no disagreement in the first place.
>
>
>> Well when I see an argumentative one - especially one that seems to
>> claim some sort of victory - I have to say that I do not take it
>as
>> indicating agreement. Rather it seems to be indicating that the
>> other party opposed the point but failed to make a case.
>
>Bearing in minds that I actualy spent much of this discussion
>agreeing with you, I realy don't know what to say about this.
>
Well I don't think that trying to suggest that I would assume timing
problems for no reason is a sign of agreement. I think of it as at
least verging on a personal attack. And when I reflect that
statement back, I get sworn at - for nothing worse than you'd already
done. Needless to say I don't take kindly to that sort of behaviour.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail