To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26176
26175  |  26177
Subject: 
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:22:52 GMT
Viewed: 
1417 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:

   Too often an imprecisely-disclaimed statement is bludgeoned out of context, or an unintended ambiguity is taken as a explicit forfeiture of the argument.


Shouldn’t that be “declaimed”, and not “disclaimed”?

I guess my posts could sometimes be declammed when I’ve cited too many shellfish.

Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
 
(...) Clams got legs! Unfortunately, your disclaimed/declaimed/declammed non-sequitor doesn't. Unless I reply like a fool, in which case....oh no.... -->Bruce<-- clamming up... (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
 
(...) Shouldn't that be "declaimed", and not "disclaimed"? On no! Your entire argument now has now been forfeited! Nyahh. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh. ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

70 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR