Chad Richard Bresson wrote:
>  >Apparently you haven't.
> Don't mistake my lack of time to engage the issue for not having a 
> studied opinion.
>  
> I reserve the right (to the consternation of a few here from time to 
> time) to make unqualified drive-by statements. :-)

Your insistence on doing so makes any sort of discussion with you 
pointless at best or frustratingly and maddeningly annoying at worst. 
You are one of the top two or three posters on this list (in terms of 
frequency of posts) and the majority of your posts are "I assert x" with 
nothing to back up your assertion, other than your own understanding 
that you are "right."  Doing so wastes your time and ours.  A mailing 
list full of unqualified statements is worthless (witness the recent, 
"you haven't read the book" --> "yes, i have" conversation).  Why do you 
insist on making these "drive-by statements" that are of little worth to 
the rest of us?  You clearly have a wealth of knowledge but you seem to 
have the attitude that we should just trust you that your unqualified 
statement is correct.  Look at your reply to Jen this morning concerning 
her assertion that "law" only has one meaning.  "No, it doesn't."  Dude, 
that is profound - and completely worthless to the rest of us.
--
john-thomas