> But, again, I don't believe you. I believe you are NOT interested in the > practical consequences of using the string "strawman" when discussing my > rendition of the EricC/Nick principle. The reason I don't believe you is > because you do NOT talk about the topic in which the string "strawman" was > used. You *only* talk about the ambiguity in the string "strawman". > > If you did as Steve did and spent a tiny amount of pixels on the ambiguity > around the string "strawman", but the majority of your pixels around the > actual topic at hand, then I'd believe you were interested in the practical > consequences of using "strawman" in that context. > > Hell, I'd even be happy if you outright accused me of creating a strawman and > then explained (kinda like Steve did) why the ambiguity of "strawman" > demonstrates that I've created a strawman. I'm pretty sure it is "strawmen all the way down" <grin>
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
