On 22 Mar 2007 16:00:55 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>>Yes, I see it, but if you make a statement in response to a previous statement
>>you cannot claim that a sub clause mentioning 'largest and best studies'
>>somehow changes the sense of the main clause.
>
>Well, yes, I can. I _am_ claiming that that makes it additionally obvious
>that jtaylor was talking about the overall net effect, and it does.
Can you not see your problem?
You seem incapable of reading what people wrote but instead see what you assume
they *SHOULD* have written.
That in itself is not a problem, but you need to learn to distinguish between
what was ACTUALLY written and what you THINK the person intended to write.
Then you could stop this Quixotic campaign to prove that black is white.
>There certainly is, because of course when Tony wrote what he did he was
>denying what he thought you meant, not having realised you'd constructed
>this fantasy scenario.
See?
There you go again.
This time you are imputing to a third party this habit of not reading and
answering what people wrote but you thought they might have meant by what they
wrote.
You are unnecessarily complicating the whole communication process by
disregarding the normal rules of written English and substituting your own where
you can twist anything that is said and accuse anyone of anything by simply
substituting your own idea of what you think they should have said for what they
actually did say.
It is something commonly done by those unfortunate to suffer from paranoia.
Perhaps something you might like to have a little think about.