🚀 go-pugleaf

rrbarnes@nando.net (Rbarnes) writes:

>In article <walkup.793165638@phyast>,
>John Walkup <walkup@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote:
>>
>>The analogy doesn't even come close to being a true comparison.  I can't
>>tell you how many steaks I have eaten over the last forty years.  But
>>the number of abortions I have performed?  Certainly.

>Well, sure, if the number is zero, how difficult is that? The point is, 
>though, of all the things you have eaten in forty years, how much of any 
>specific thing have you eaten? And if you do obstetrics/gynecology for 

You complain because I used an example with an absurdly low sample.
You are doing the same, only using absurdly high samples (# of steaks).
The numbers in question are 12 and 39.  So any examples you want to
bring in should have about that large of discrepency.

>forty years, how many of this or that specific procedure have you 
>performed? I still say that this is a great deal of bother over one of 
>the least important positions in the executive branch. This country has 
>become so obsessed over what a person has done in his/her past that they 
>have lost sight of how that person would perform their job in the 
>present. 

Then you don't mind if we axe him, since the post isn't important
anyway?  (Strange how the post becomes unimportant when the nominee
is in trouble.)