Thrown out of an FBO...

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.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are
offensive.

Are you kidding me? You are seriously thinking that debating the
philosophical merits of "never say never" is relevant here?

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

Are you offended? If not, then so what? If so, then you have simply proved
my point. Either way, I fail to see how that helps your cause.

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.

What's not nice? I made a simple, factual statement. It's impossible to
explain higher level concepts to someone who does not yet understand the
fundamentals. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone that doesn't
even understand basic arithmetic yet.

You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.

You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be incorrect?

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are
offensive.

Are you kidding me? You are seriously thinking that debating the
philosophical merits of "never say never" is relevant here?

I was pointing out what you said.



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

Are you offended? If not, then so what?

Just pointing out that you don't mind being offensive. (You described
generalizations as offensive, not me).

If so, then you have simply proved
my point. Either way, I fail to see how that helps your cause.

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.

What's not nice? I made a simple, factual statement. It's impossible to
explain higher level concepts to someone who does not yet understand the
fundamentals. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone that doesn't
even understand basic arithmetic yet.

You can get off your condescending "I'm more educated than you" high horse. You
proclaim how generalizations are offensive and should be avoided while making
generalizations.



You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.

You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be incorrect?

Because your statement is false.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
[...]
You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.

You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be
incorrect?

Because your statement is false.

You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are offensive.
That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own admission.
If my statement is false, it is only because you lied.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
[...]
You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.

You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be
incorrect?

Because your statement is false.

You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are offensive.

Some can be, some aren't.
This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
trees." How is that offensive, Peter?


That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own admission.

False premise and false claim.


If my statement is false, it is only because you lied.

False dichotomy fallacy.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are
offensive.

Some can be, some aren't.
This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
trees." How is that offensive, Peter?

Are you really that simple? I really need to qualify my statement to make
it clear that I am talking about a specific type of generalization?

That word "idiotic" is coming to mind again.

That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own
admission.

False premise and false claim.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are
offensive.

Some can be, some aren't.
This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
trees." How is that offensive, Peter?

Are you really that simple? I really need to qualify my statement to make
it clear that I am talking about a specific type of generalization?

You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations. You
merely said "generalizations are so offensive in the first place."

That word "idiotic" is coming to mind again.

If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."



That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own
admission.

False premise and false claim.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?