Thrown out of an FBO...

"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?

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ed72116dcbb99a

More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used. There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

[...]
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."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

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

I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...6c40345ef84ce4

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

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true. And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

Pete