In message of 9 May, Peter Naulls <peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
In message <4e24375eceevanallen(a)uko2.co.uk>
Barry Allen <evanallen(a)uko2.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> <peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
> > Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
> Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
Pot, kettle. My reply was entirely justified. Yours on the other
hand is just a cheap shot with no value.
I will have to support Barry here. The original comment of
"Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?"
was unnecessary and offensive. There are two ways of phrasing this:
(a) By pointing out the faults in the writers personality, which is
what was done.
(b) By pointing out the fault in the argument, using a phrase such as:
"Unfortunately there is an assumption here which I do not think is
justified. The assumption is ..."
The advantage of using style (b) is that you do not get the back up of
the person whose argument you have criticised. You can then hope to
continue the discussion without referring, inevitably to one another's
I would recommend that you, Peter, try to avoid arguments against the
man (the (a) type) and stick to arguments against the words (the (b)
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim(a)powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org