>DNAunion: "You" refered to the generic (and immediately preceding) "you
people" - not you specifically.
>FMAJ: As Wesley already pointed out how can the generic be not including the
specific. "Too bad you can't just face your opponents honestly..." Or am I
not one of "you people"?
DNAunion: DIdn't you read my full reply to Wesley's post (that I
inadvertentally posted back to everyone)? "You people" is a ficticious
group: it is the opposite of "us people". Since I do not believe in grouping
people into either "us people" or "your people", then there really was no
"you people".
I have not tried to find the post, but I remember reading someone's
statements against "us people" that "our" position is so weak that "we"
cannot face up to "our" opponents honestly: that "we" must resort to
manipulations, quoting out of context, lying, etc. Again (as I do a lot), I
reversed the charge and stated that "you people" can't face your opponents
without being dishonest. Again, it is ironic that you got so offended by my
counter statement, but no one even noticed the error when it was applied to
"us".
So the short answer is NO, you are not one of "you people".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 22:22:21 EDT