On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:04:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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,

.... and yet he and cavelamb and gummer and some others I can't recall,
have all done it.

except among bottom-feeders and white trash. So these
discussions devolve into an evasive two-step.

Two-step? Try Michael Flatley working his way through a bushel of
No-Doz. :-)

Wayne