Posted by dorayme on 09/09/05 01:43

> From: Neredbojias <neredbojias@neredbojias.com>
>
>> In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
>> unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
>> convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
>> slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.
>> To me, this is often a sign of a likely mistake in reasoning to
>> do with a confusion about the scope of the issue at hand. Let me
>> give you an example: I find I have nothing good to say about
>> some political or religious positions because they stink *on the
>> whole*. I am not inclined to see any strong or even mildly
>> reasonable points *for* the positions concerned. I am most
>> reluctant to concede the slightest thing, let alone encourage
>> them in the slightest. But in this, I am probably more
>> unreasonable than I should be!
>
> I, er, understood your point until I read the explanation.
> Nevertheless, I concur with the final conclusion.


I see... I say that folk can be unreasonable sometimes,
including myself and you suddenly did not understand the point
that even unsatisfactory technologies are not necessarily
unsatisfactory in every respect. You understood it before.
But... whoosh... it suddenly went all dark after some modest
admissions of human frailties on my part. I feel an urge to
study your brain... honest, I'll give it you back when I have
finished with it. (I will modify it only the very slightest bit,
there will be a new found urgency to go dance with Russell
Crowe... but that WILL be in your best interest)

dorayme

[Back to original message]