P
Paul Smith
Guest
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:00:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You muttered:
>>>> >> >> Tax: (n) A contribution to State revenue, compulsorily levied on people, businesses,
>>>> >> >> property, income, commodities, transactions,
>>>etc.
>And then grumbled:
>>>> Is there supposed to be interest or benefit in discussing the definition of the word "tax"?
>You said:
>>I didn't start it.
>Our survey said: <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=18145v0dna8iod3eei85muaiikj5gl1qpk%404ax.com&h-
>l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=VZj*oGiLp%40news.chiark.greenend.org.uk&rnum=1>
I did point out the CC was a tax. I didn't start the argument about the definition of "tax".
>>>Begs the question "why did you start it then" really
>>And that's a now common misuse of the once excellent phrase "begs the question". But I can't be
>>bothered.
>Thank you for your excellent demonstration of the ad hominem argument,
It's no such thing of course.
>and thanks to Geraint for pointing out to us that the usage was incorrect according to best
>practice. Actually it was an acceptable use of the phrase in current English according to some
>sources, but I will be careful to use the more correct usage only in future.
>Because I can be bothered.
Yawn.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
>You muttered:
>>>> >> >> Tax: (n) A contribution to State revenue, compulsorily levied on people, businesses,
>>>> >> >> property, income, commodities, transactions,
>>>etc.
>And then grumbled:
>>>> Is there supposed to be interest or benefit in discussing the definition of the word "tax"?
>You said:
>>I didn't start it.
>Our survey said: <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=18145v0dna8iod3eei85muaiikj5gl1qpk%404ax.com&h-
>l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=VZj*oGiLp%40news.chiark.greenend.org.uk&rnum=1>
I did point out the CC was a tax. I didn't start the argument about the definition of "tax".
>>>Begs the question "why did you start it then" really
>>And that's a now common misuse of the once excellent phrase "begs the question". But I can't be
>>bothered.
>Thank you for your excellent demonstration of the ad hominem argument,
It's no such thing of course.
>and thanks to Geraint for pointing out to us that the usage was incorrect according to best
>practice. Actually it was an acceptable use of the phrase in current English according to some
>sources, but I will be careful to use the more correct usage only in future.
>Because I can be bothered.
Yawn.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving