Lawrence Helm wrote: "You might be annoyed that I didn't find your expressions self-authenticating but 'tis the nature of dialogue, sir. We are never ever understood as well as we think we ought to be." The issue is not one of being understood well enough, but whether you are at all interested in understanding a position other than your own. You took my comments and squeezed them into a square hole. I am not interested in trying to fit into the neat little holes you have carved for yourself. Lawrence continues: "'Logical Assumption' is a common term. Perhaps it isn't as precise as others terms we might use. It is the antithesis of 'Fallacious assumption'. It means an assumption in a Logical argument." Perhaps the term you are looking for is 'valid assumption'? Lawrence continues: "The argument you present as being in defense of Moral Equivalence doesn't serve the current purpose." I take that to mean your purpose. Sorry about that. If you could let us know what you want us to say, it would simplify the dialogue. Thank you. Lawrence concludes: "So you intended an attack on me in your original note. Well, I missed that as well." You didn't miss it, because I didn't intend an attack. I thought I might interject into the conversation an alternative to your own perspective. Not an attack, but a different way of looking at the problem. Curious that you would see alternatives to your own views as necessarily violent. Anyways, I apologize for interrupting you. Carry on. Sincerely, mostly, Phil Enns Glen Haven, NS ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html