Subject:
|
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:29:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
534 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> >
> > John, your equivocation (or misprision, if you prefer) hinges on two distinct
> > definitions of potential.
>
> I believe Richard's straw term is the actual equivocation here (particularily
> when he snips the entire post to which he is responding). Further, Larry never
> used this word in the first place; is not even synonymous with his intended
> meaning. Since there wasn't any valid context of RM's post, my choice of
> definition is just as valid as any. And I am going to take your word on the
> illustration of roasted Dave!
Perhaps RM erred in such a large snip, but I immediately took his comment to
refer to:
> c) prepared to discuss how likely it is that " more importantly, that
> they're likely to deliver to their citizens in future." is true (the second
> part of my metric) about Canada. It's not enough to be ahead at the moment.
which seems to be investigating the potential of a country to deliver
[quality of life] to it's citizens, as a metric for superiority. No doubt
I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to fit better than any
reference to nuclear fission.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
79 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
