"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...

I gather that you prefer to resort to the "Do you know who you are
talking to" approach rather than justify your words logically.

The ad hominem approach was started by you, not me. If you are now
content to drop that side of it, then that's fine by me.

I described your post as "twaddle" because that's what it looked like to me;
an attempt to compare UK and US usage of English based on the fallacy that
Americans always use slang, and Brits never do. But I'm happy to withdraw
the word if it offends you so much.

On the other hand you were the one who introduced psychology into the
discussion as though it was relevant, and as though your credentials as a
psychologist somehow gave your opinions greater weight than mine. I have
invited you to explain exactly how that is so, but instead you responded
with the ad hominem attack below:-

I doesn't surprise me that you want words to be "justified logically".
Engineering about psychology is about as useful as dancing about
architecture. While you may live in a world of convergent thinking and
mathematical formulae there are numerous other aspects of human
experience that exist on other levels and to dismiss these as
"twaddle" really says more about your own primary focus and the
assumptions you make.

Do you read poetry, for instance? Or do all words have to be justified
logically to have any currency?


David.