The "I" of the Tiger
in [Golf in UK]
|
From: barbara on 28 Feb 2010 10:34 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:59:52 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > ><barbara(a)bookpro.com> wrote in message >news:agmjo59qf8rqs8hd96lgl0vmvf93inp449(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> >>>Those analogies >> >> What analogy? You said "No one calls a press conference to help their >> family." I gave examples of when people do. > > >That's what an analogy is. I know what an analogy is. Again, I was giving EXAMPLES that showed your original statement to be invalid. Again, your original statement was ""No one calls a press conference to help their family." You did not say "No one who is apologizing for personal behavior does it to help their family." Whether or not that's true is another matter, and I have never argued that one way or the other. From the very first, I was simply challenging what you said, not what you wish you had said or might have said if you had been thinking more clearly, or whatever caused you to say what you actually did say. All I ever did was question that statement. Instead of doing what most people would do--concede that you had overgeneralized in your eagerness to make a point--you have continually danced around and introduced all sorts of irrelevant points. That's interesting to me, as human behavior. I was curious how long you could keep it up. It has turned out to be longer than I expected--even in the face of clear logic. Why is it so hard for you to say that yes, you overgeneralized? BW
From: Otto Bahn on 1 Mar 2010 11:59
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni(a)hotmail.com> wrote > In Tiger's case, the press conference was 100% about his public image and > 0% about his family. I disagree with the 100/0% part. I'm sure a public mea culpa for a *celebrity* is often needed to regain the trust of a hubby in a case of infedelity, but I also think he did it more for himself than his family. --oTTo-- |