"R. Harrill" wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" decided to attack again with a new round of inflamatory name calling:
> Mike, here is Merriam-Webster's defintion of non sequitur...
> "a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said"
> It's possible you're so anxious to get me that you're not making enough sense for me to
> responsibly respond. So I'm going to let the thread go and instead start a new one.
Perhaps its that you have no ability to debate my points, and prefer to call
them attacks specifically because you cannot answer them. Being able to label
something a non sequitur requires that the recipient of the comment be able to
think logically. What I am anxious about is to figure out why you, a luddite,
would willfully subscribe to a known anti-luddite list, snipe the list with your
unfounded luddite propaganda, and act all incredulous and surprised that people
don't take up the challenge to quickly dispatch your ridiculous comments. Why
would you, the agressor, complain that your are being 'attacked' when it is you
who initiated the action? You sound like a terrorist holding hostages who shoots
a hostage and tells the negotiator,"Now look at what you made me do."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:57 MDT