In Reply to: Re: What the hell are you talking about? posted by Phil Tower on December 9, 2003 at 12:22:32:
Was it related to the discussion?Was it even relevant to the point I made in disagreeing with Steve?
In my opinion, it had no value other than simply to score cheap points by nit-picking.
I agree completely that reasonable discussion is possible, and I certainly enjoy it when it happens.
A post disagreeing with me, and pointing out an error on my part, would be welcome, and constitute a useful conversation. Calling Steve for responding with something else is hardly "broadsiding him".
Peter
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Phil, how would YOU characterize the Copernicus comment? - Commuteman 13:03:25 12/09/03 (6)
- Re: Phil, how would YOU characterize the Copernicus comment? - Phil Tower 14:45:42 12/09/03 (5)
- Look, rational discussion... - Commuteman 12:23:46 12/10/03 (4)
- Re: Look, rational discussion... - Phil Tower 15:06:30 12/10/03 (3)
- Re: Look, rational discussion... - john curl 15:56:33 12/10/03 (2)
- Uh oh.....thugs are us.. - jneutron 13:10:28 12/11/03 (0)
- Thugs are people too (nt) - Phil Tower 21:18:24 12/10/03 (0)