wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:12:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you
take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That
fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us
what
you think the insult IS.

Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises.

snipped

Your points are all excellent and well-written as usual, but my
prediction is that Don will continue to argue his transparent charade
of just-trying-to-be-reasonable-and-peaceful, even though he showed
his true colors earlier. And I'm thinking that we didn't hear the half
of it. Good luck dealing with someone that insincere and evasive.

FWIW, I don't think that most Americans are going to answer that question
forthrightly, because it's very un-PC (not to say a violation of one of our
key social principles) to say you assume guilt by religious association. It
just isn't done, except among bottom-feeders and white trash. So these
discussions devolve into an evasive two-step.

Look
for him to start a thread some time later, in which he'll say that he
was on a walk and became frightened by somebody "who looked like he
might be a Muslim... good thing I was armed and could show him that
I'm not going to change my way of life because of terrorists". :-)

Wayne

There's plenty of sophistry on tap these days. If anyone cared to get upset
about it, he could occupy himself on this NG full-time. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress