"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net...
Well, if you are a trial lawyer, you can't be a very good one. :-)
Trial lawyers are usually way too smart to make a point by forming a
comment that takes an individual (Henrique) and portrays that individual
in a hypothetical group (them and their ilk); which is a glittering
generalization; then in the next sentence, demands specifics. That's
hysterically funny!!!!
You were doing fine until you reached for that "them and their ilk" bit.
Here's a clue for your "next case".
Glittering generalization has no place in trial law. Actually, it has
no place in intelligent dialog either :-))))

Well, of course neither Tom nor Dudley have given any response to the
original issue; rather, just ad hominum attacks on the author. That
should settle who is right. In the courtroom, we have an argument that
carries some logical weight: "There are two things that a jury must
consider-the law and the facts. If the law is against the lawyer,
pound on the facts. If the facts are against him, pound on the law.
If both the law and the facts are against him, pound on the other
lawyer." "Nuff said."

Tom's response is his usual insipid personal insult when he is beat
(often), and deserves no response. Dudley's response is similarly
without substance. There is no generalization; my observation about
his (lack of) facts and supportable opinion and those of his ilk (like
Tom) is proven by the "content" of his response.