Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After 
>> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I 
>> see no reason for confusion ;)
> 
>> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are 
>> different from Swedish.
> 
>> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot, 
>> interesting.
> 
>   As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
> 
>   Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
> not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
> 
The first citation has a ;), the other don't. And there is a reason for 
that, viz. that I mean it. It might really be possible that the asylum 
seekers and economic migrants that go to Scandinavia have a different 
composition. It might also be very possible that for some reason the 
papers in Sweden present their analysis different from the Dutch. So we 
end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and 
you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make. 
Interesting (note the absent emoticon).

Post a reply to this message