Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: James A. Donald <jamesd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:39:03 +1000
Jonathan L Cunningham
Second best would have been to *not* take JD's
remark out of context. In context, *his* remark was
far less absolutist. [...]
"Brian M. Scott"
No, it wasn't. It was an unqualified generalization,
and the context doesn't improve it in the least.
If a generalization is unqualified then it is not
qualified by "all" or "every", in which case you have no
reason to insert those qualifications unless looking for
a fight.
My intended meaning was that in sf the other worldly
setting is important. My intended meaning was not
that in all sf is all about other worldly settings and
not much else.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
- References:
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Graham Woodland
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Prev by Date: Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Next by Date: Re: Destructive duplication and legacy value systems
- Previous by thread: Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Next by thread: Re: Proposed FAQ addition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|