🚀 go-pugleaf

chess@widomaker.com (Alison Rosenstengel) wrote:
>In article <47e88s$1hh@news.infi.net>, JGB-9357  <jgb9357@infi.net> wrote:
>>chess@widomaker.com (Alison Rosenstengel) wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see why you can't just suck it up and not use the radar 
>>>detector.  It's *the law* and the people of the state like the law.
>>
>>You don't speak for me.
>
>Where in those two sentences do I purport to speak for you?  

In the second one.  

>Your 
>*representative* speaks for you and the representatives have kept the 
>law.  

Then, if that is what you are trying to get across, say it that 
way.  Your poor diction causes the wrong impression to be given.  

If you had said ".....people of the state seem to like...", I 
                                          ^^^^^^^  
would agree with you.  With the law in effect it is obvious that 
a majority either don't care about, or actually like, the radar 
detector ban.
 
>Must you continue to pollute this newsgroup with this pointless 
>back-and-forth?

Must you continue to pollute this newsgroup with inclusive opinions?

 
-- 
     
     <'^'> JGB-9357 <'^'>

     "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
      temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." 
                                              -- Benjamin Franklin