Cynic wrote:
> 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.
You're not following this. There are loads of things I can remember from
when I was a child. Where they were sufficiently general experiences,
there'll usually be some way of getting a reference to them on the web.
> Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
> their life some years before you were born?
Only when they tried to tell me something ridiculous (such as the days -
and places - when cyclists were forced by law to cycle on the wrong
side of the road).
>>> 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
...is the best answer to give, in the circumstances. |