=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
No treatment for you, fatty...
Log In to post a reply
47 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: No treatment for you, fatty...
Dec 08, 2005, 17:27
That didn't embarrass me in the least. I said that the article included hard fact and some assumption, and that I'd been clear which was which. Where there was an assumption, it was made clear what the basis for the assumption was.

He responded by pointing out that assumption isn't hard fact, which I knew and conceded already.

Hongnam refused to respond to any points about the grounds for assumption, excpet to say that all assumptions are roundless (except on one occasion where he said there is such a thing as fair assumption, before reverting back to the 'all groundless' position again).

It was yet another case of the Lemon/Manao/Hongnam thing of picking a small issue, implying it slurs the integrity of the individual saying it, and refusing to respond to the counterpoints.

If there was an error in factual basis, if the grounds for assumption were proven wrong, then I'd happily concede it. He did not have any evidence to the contrary of what I'd said, and seemingly only had a desire to shout one point repeatedly even when it had been answered.
In reply to:
Re: No treatment for you, fatty... (Kid Calamity)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index