On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: > On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is >>> difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non >>> sequitar, of course, but hey. >> >> <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur>: > > <snip> > > Please tell me you didn't have to look that up. Or do you just have > such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand > the conversation that is taking place?
Ronn's point seems to be that _you_ should have looked it up. My experience with Ronn on this list suggests that he knows exactly what non-sequitur means without looking it up, but he likes to cite his sources. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I think you may have meant non-starter, which is an expression some use for something that is so wrong that it just won't happen. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
