Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

n Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual
war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

Nope.

Bertie