On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:51:47 -0400, "J. McLaughlin"
wrote:

I have read several times the quotation that has prompted
discussion. (see below) The statement uses "it" too many times for me
to know what is being contended.
....
My request is to see a clear statement in Standard English (BCC
English is ok) of what W8JI is contending.

Hi Mac,

The danger of this is these "arguments" (offered on the behalf of a
otherwise silent party) is that they have every chance of being under
reported, and over extended. It quickly devolves to "so-and-so
thinks...." to triumphantly prove it-just-ain't-so.

It reminds me of past statements offered as V9SRB's logic in his
behalf that never were suggested by him nor even intimated. As a
one-time shot against a full statement, I suppose that is enough to
critique, but I have seen this hothouse orchid bloom into fully
fleshed philosophies projected onto the silent protagonist by
unrelated statements forced into continuity by the critic presuming a
sub-context.

If Yuri, you have some beef against Tom, I can fully concur in his
personality taking you there. Has he offered howlers? You bet! Is
he guilty of other rhetorical shenanigans - don't we know. Is he
demonstrably skilled? Well, yes, that too.

[warning to readers, metaphors employed to a sly comic interlude]

Suffice it to say no Radio Moscow program ever interviewed a Radio
Free Europe commentator to serious issues - why would you expect such
a re-alignment of the heavens for your sake?

Ask George W for help; you might find he would take on the evil Dr.
Joyce Brothers to solve our moral problems with Howard Stern. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC