Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:36:38 GMT
Message-ID: <a_kPg.21850$9u.257280_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. As to your point 1, I freely admit the
> failing. It is an area I am currently working on, and still need
> work in. I'll try to digest what you said. As to your point 2,
> sometimes one is more concerned with the wider audience,
> even when one is addressing a specific individual. I am
> particularly keen lately to knock down any hint that there
> is any advantage to ignorance.
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:36:38 GMT
Message-ID: <a_kPg.21850$9u.257280_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
>>Marshall wrote: >> >>Marshall, your reply to Pamela was persuasively worded yet has two fatal >>flaws:
>
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. As to your point 1, I freely admit the
> failing. It is an area I am currently working on, and still need
> work in. I'll try to digest what you said. As to your point 2,
> sometimes one is more concerned with the wider audience,
> even when one is addressing a specific individual. I am
> particularly keen lately to knock down any hint that there
> is any advantage to ignorance.
To your credit, I cannot chastise you this time for ignoring the most compelling argument. The other points she made were equally absurd, and your replies persuasively showed them as complete nonsense.
What's more, you responded to her incoherence with something coherent and made it look easy, which earns gobs and gobs of style points. As a post to persuade third parties, I have to give you two thumbs up.
(I am only allowed to do that because I have two thumbs.) Received on Mon Sep 18 2006 - 01:36:38 CEST