[WRhine]

"LOL. Oh, I see, I have to PROVE the validity of my observation to YOU."

You don't have to do anything of the sort. I'm not your daddy.

huh? Do you recognize the below statement in quotes?

"To help it stand, you'll have to cite examples of the "many of the posters" that take these conflicting positions. If you're right, it should be easy to do."

Sure, you can say that "you weren't talking about me", and that I'm jumping to conclusions. Perhaps. However, by being NON-specific in your Observation, it could easily lead people to think that you were making such a generalization -and you darn well know it.

I thought it in good taste not to name names and start a Flame War. OK, perhaps instead of saying "most" I should have said "some".

[beezdotcom]

huh? Do you recognize the below statement in quotes?

Perhaps you're right. I should have said "In order to convince me, you have to...."

Clearly, you have no obligation to convince me of anything. But yes, if you wanted me to consider your observation valid, I would expect to see examples of said observation. I hadn't made the same observation, therefore I felt no particular compulsion to try to validate YOUR observation - the burden would be on you, at that point. Since it was represented as a generalization, I already knew of at least one case where it wasn't valid - myself.