Comments on: Carter's Little Books http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/ Chip Bok Editorial Cartoons Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:47:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Mick http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1463 Mick Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:38:13 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1463 Wow. Wow.

]]> By: Mencken http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1462 Mencken Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:32:38 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1462 "you're (sic) congruent analogous response" I had a doctor scope me once and that happened then too. "you're (sic) congruent analogous response"

I had a doctor scope me once and that happened then too.

]]> By: Mick http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1461 Mick Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:20:34 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1461 "What if I had posted a link about yet another car bombing in Baghdad? Would that have been redundant or merely restating the obvious?" Both I'd say. But in your initial post you seemed to wonder why the Palestinians have such a bad reputation. I posted the link as an example of why. "What if I had posted a link about yet another car bombing in Baghdad? Would that have been redundant or merely restating the obvious?"

Both I'd say. But in your initial post you seemed to wonder why the Palestinians have such a bad reputation. I posted the link as an example of why.

]]> By: Mick http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1460 Mick Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:11:45 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1460 Larry didnt post the link, I did. In any case, in terms of your formula, you are correct if were taking the Stanford-Binet. But in any discussion regarding large groups of people, generalizations are unavoidable. We're debating English usage here, not politics. As an illustration to this debate, If I said "the Americans invaded Iraq" you're congruent analogous response would be "No, not all Americans since both of us are still here in Akron". While your response is technically correct, its understood as a given and kind of pointless to include that information. Larry didnt post the link, I did.

In any case, in terms of your formula, you are correct if were taking the Stanford-Binet. But in any discussion regarding large groups of people, generalizations are unavoidable. We're debating English usage here, not politics.

As an illustration to this debate, If I said "the Americans invaded Iraq" you're congruent analogous response would be "No, not all Americans since both of us are still here in Akron". While your response is technically correct, its understood as a given and kind of pointless to include that information.

]]> By: Mencken http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1459 Mencken Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:35:00 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1459 I used the word sometimes so as not to make it an absolute which has been my point all along... avoiding sweeping generalizations. I mean really what was the point of your posting the link anyway ? Be honest. What if I had posted a link about yet another car bombing in Baghdad? Would that have been redundant or merely restating the obvious? I used the word sometimes so as not to make it an absolute which has been my point all along… avoiding sweeping generalizations.

I mean really what was the point of your posting the link anyway ?

Be honest.

What if I had posted a link about yet another car bombing in Baghdad? Would that have been redundant or merely restating the obvious?

]]> By: larry d. http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1458 larry d. Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:24:13 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1458 Since nitpicking is what it's all about, the presence of the word "sometimes" in your formula implies that A and C are interchangeable only sometimes (doubled). Since nitpicking is what it's all about, the presence of the word "sometimes" in your formula implies that A and C are interchangeable only sometimes (doubled).

]]> By: Mencken http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1457 Mencken Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:20:04 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1457 Fair enough, but you're still using the equation that if A (Palestinian) sometimes = B (Islamic Fundamentalist) and B sometimes = C (Terrorists) then A and C are interchangable. My ex-accountant (R.I.P) escaped Germany during WWII, came to America and joined the US Marines as soon as he got his citizen- ship. I think he would have questioned your equation as well. Fair enough, but you're still using the equation that if A (Palestinian) sometimes = B (Islamic Fundamentalist) and B sometimes = C (Terrorists) then A and C are interchangable.

My ex-accountant (R.I.P) escaped Germany during WWII, came to

America and joined the US Marines as soon as he got his citizen- ship. I think he would have questioned your equation as well.

]]> By: Mick http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1456 Mick Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:53:54 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1456 I think you're splitting hairs here. Its acceptable in a discourse about WW2 to say that the Germans did X, Y and Z rather than the more specific term Nazi. Of course not all Germans were Nazis at the time, but those people were irrelavent to the actions of Germany as a whole. Same goes here. I think you're splitting hairs here. Its acceptable in a discourse about WW2 to say that the Germans did X, Y and Z rather than the more specific term Nazi. Of course not all Germans were Nazis at the time, but those people were irrelavent to the actions of Germany as a whole. Same goes here.

]]> By: Mencken http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1455 Mencken Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:38:48 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1455 Yes of course Mick. But the reverse of that is not true, just as all Palestinians are not fundamentalist Islamists. Yes of course Mick. But the reverse of that is not true, just as all Palestinians are not fundamentalist Islamists.

]]> By: Mick http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/2006/12/carters-little-books/#comment-1454 Mick Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:14:55 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/bok/?p=306#comment-1454 In my experience, all snake handling, tongues speaking evangelicals ARE Christians, so as far as I know that statement is succinct and 100% true. In my experience, all snake handling, tongues speaking evangelicals ARE Christians, so as far as I know that statement is succinct and 100% true.

]]>