Re: That was science
Posted by Dale on Feb 01, 2002 at 09:18
Re: That was science (mara)in my opinion, that statement is humorous
I ain't never been known for my perfect grammer. I tend to get in a flow and put thoughts to keyboard in the order they appear.would it be possible for you to modify that statement to "My comments are simply the result of my analysis of what Danny said and why I disagree with him"?
wouldn't that be more scientific ?
No. A scientific attitude requires honesty. It would not be honest for me to just say that I disagree rather than that it is wrong when the point under discussion should be obvious. It should be obvious that knowledge of Doyle is not required to understand a joke based on an oversight. It should be obvious that the Holmes references were incidental to the joke. To state that knowledge of the author of the Holmes novels is central to understanding the joke is not just debatable, it is flat out wrong.don't you realize that some people do not agree with what you think is 'wrong'
Of course. Thatís why Iím here. To set them straight. :)is it not possible to limit opinions to statements of disagreement and not to statements of value judgements of other people's opinions ?
Letís take a step back. I believe you are missing another trait of mine. I tend to not comment at all when it is simple opinion or when the argument isnít overwhelming. If it appears that I am always stating that someone is wrong rather than that I just disagree it is because I donít comment when I merely disagree. I choose my battles carefully and you need to be clearly wrong before I will call you on it. Luckily for me I have Danny who is so consistently wrong I never lack for opportunity. :)so, unless you can prove that a molecule of water does not contain two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen, or other such observation, what you are writing is an 'opinion'.
And I donít believe I write opinion pieces that often. I think I link to support quite often. But Iíll try to do better.
- Re: That was science Shasta 14/2 18:58 (0)
- Re: That was science mara 08/2 11:28 (9)
- Re: That was science Dale 09/2 10:32 (8)
- Re: That was science mara 12/2 12:45 (2)
- Re: That was science Amaranth Rose 10/2 03:21 (4)
Post a Followup