Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
I have no need to wish.

Lack of need is no indication of lack of doing.

Irrelevant.



No maybe about it. By definition.

Whose definition?

By the definition of the words. "Generalization" has a specific meaning,
that is to generalize, or to infer a general conclusion. The word "blanket"
means to cover completely. *Completely*.

A "blanket generalization" is a generalization that applies the
generalization completely.

Yes, blanket, as in "generalizations are so offensive."



You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

Well, first of all, I'm under no obligation to respond to everything I
disagree with. Do not infer that I condone everything to which I don't
explicitly disagree.

Secondly, the question at hand is whether Jay should have had any reason to
expect the other person to respond negatively and whether Jay should have
thought twice before stating the generalization in the first place. Unlike
others, I am trying to stay focused on that question. Offensive
generalizations posted by others within this thread have nothing to do with
the actual topic at hand, and I see no reason to waste my time on them.

You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?

I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket generalization
is offensive (and in particular, insulting generalizations...I admit, most
people aren't offended when they are part of a group that someone claims has
some positive characteristic, but that's not what we're talking about here).

Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are offensive.

This is basic kindergarten stuff, IMHO. Anyone with a proper upbringing
should understand why it's not nice to say mean things about someone, and
especially about a large population generally.

Now you are making another generalization about "anyone with a proper
upbringing."

If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
explain the specifics of the situation to you.

That's not nice, Pete.

You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.



I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

"Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
talking about.

Of course there is an indication. It's the reason I quoted your text.
Again, I find it amazing this needs to be explained to you, but since your
comprehension level is so low, here it is, spelled out:

"Clearly, you do not UNDERSTAND JUST FINE." (Note words taken directly from
the quoted text to which my text referred).

Clearly, I do, and I also note that you continue to make generalizations while
railing about generalizations.