On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:17:12 -0500 Michael A. Terrell
| email@example.com wrote:
|> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
|> | it! ;-)
|> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
| So what? You are almost always wrong.
If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
have thus left unchallenged.
Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
post what you believe is the correct statement.
For example, if I post:
1 + 1 = 3
You would following up with:
Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
would be "1 + 1 = 2".
But be sure you get the context correct. If I am posting something that is
intentionally using an error as an example, you would look silly to refute
it in that context. For example I might post (in response to something):
That would be as wrong as saying 1 + 1 = 3.
Then you should look at the context, too. Perhaps in light of that context
you might find the relationship being wrong. If so, explain that.
The important points are to always be sure you clearly understand what the
context is. If in doubt, ask. If you got the context wrong, your could
look silly refuting my post. And always be as specific as you possibly
can be. Narrow things down to exactly the points that are wrong within
the working context.
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
Click to see the full signature.