On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:51:50 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>> Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
>> taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
>> proving something that was common knowlege at that time.
>Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on
>the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates
>his position but cannot reference it.
Of couse you can discuss matters by reference to things you recall
from the past. I do so IRL all the time. You'll hear many people
discussing all sorts of things without disappearing every 5 minutes to
find documentary proof of what they say.
Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
their life some years before you were born?
>> I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
>> local rule. At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.
>OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule
>at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.
If you choose to disbelieve what I have said or believe that my memory
is faulty, that is your perogative and I do not regard the issue
important enough to spend time attempting to prove anything.
--
Cynic
|