D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.


Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!



There are a LOT of them out there.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.


So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.


Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.



Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.






Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context
to absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it
takes someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the
statement isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven
flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.






Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.


....and apparently you are!

A Brown wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context
to absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it
takes someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the
statement isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven
flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.
...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.





Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.


...and apparently you are!



LOL!

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!



Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD
to take off for all its promise.

And there are those, even members of the group--like Pancho
himself--who believe not only that SW is dead, but it's actively
standing in the way of more revolutionary technical developments.

So, guys like this are no surprise.

Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.

A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some seminar
groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing up now that
it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the wrong side of the
public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.




Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Pancho did say that he showed some of these discussions to some
seminar groups a couple of years ago. I'd expect them to start showing
up now that it's starting to look like his position on HD is on the
wrong side of the public's interest.

Then, again, there are those true believers who desperately want HD to
take off for all its promise.

Then again, there are those radio geeks who despareately want HD radio to
fail!

The public doesn't care what radio geeks think.


Nor, apparently, does the public care about HD radio.

They don't care about the technology that brings them the content they want.

Only radio geeks care about the technology.