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 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?

Andy

"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.

Good God, man, are you still trying to dredge some content out of this
weary subject? If you were stuck in a bedsit in Bognor on a rainy
Sunday in October with nothing on the telly I could maybe understand
it but on an April day when Spring is in the air?

If you imagine I find talking about the difference between valves and
tubes more interesting than cutting my toenails you're in error.

If you think I have any intention of abiding by your rules of
engagement you are even more in error.

And if you think I am going to indulge you in a petty exercise of
pedantry and nitpicking whose only destiny is to spiral inevitably
downwards into an abyss of tedium you are, as the Norwegians say, out
in the potato field.

Andy

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...


If you imagine I find talking about the difference between valves and
tubes more interesting than cutting my toenails you're in error.


So why did you bother writing about it before? More to the point why were
you so quick introduce the subject of your academic credentials as proof of
your infallibility?

I know nothing about you other than what you write here, and that is what I
judge you on. The academic qualifications you were so keen to flaunt are of
no more interest to me than your toenails.

David.