"David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:vihvr3t3vuv6a34st8bl6tf3gcrmtgv2d6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:38:59 -0500, "Meldon" <meldon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:069vr3taq1kecfgq36hf2brau3jec904cv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:08:13 -0500, "Meldon" <meldon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which of the following do you think we are living in?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MLK's dream:
>>>>
>>>>"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a
>>>>nation
>>>>where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the
>>>>content
>>>>of their character."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MLK's nightmare:
>>>>
>>>>"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a
>>>>nation
>>>>where they will be judged not by the content of their character but by
>>>>the
>>>>color of their skin ."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neither.
>>
>>You rejected both and supplied no alternative.
>
> They do not live in a nation where their character counts for nothing
> because of their skin colour. They do not live in a nation where
> their skin colour counts for nothing because of their character.
> Thus...neither.
Let me see if I can correctly parse your triple-negative.... "They live in
a
nation where their character counts for something. They live in a nation
where the colour of their skin counts for something; thus, both."
Now that we've taken care of your wordsmithery for which you might well be
dismissed from any profession requiring clear written language, your
intended logical flaw ignores King's comparison between the two elements;
colour VERSUS character. Both elements existed in his day also, but he is
making a clear distinction which you have intentionally obscured in a
dramatic demonstration of legal craft.
Further, the motivation of your efforts and use of advanced communication
skills directed to profit in the promotion of silence, is deplorable . For
shame counselor.
|
