On 2005-11-14 10:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Well your argument could well be twisted back at you Robert. Let's assume that you know the exact same number of people who experienced HLA over the years. Then let's assume that Aften knows the exact same number of people from HLA that you do. But the only difference being, during different periods of time. So, assuming this to be fact, her argument that HLA was an overall helpful experience for most holds just as much weight as your argument that it helped nobody. Seems to be that this is a stalemate. You claim HLA is bad, and she does not. At this point it is nothing more than the glass either being half full, or half empty. No one person is wrong, and no one person is right. Therefore, your insults to her of her differing opinion are meaningless. You have your view, and she has hers. That's all it is."
The only difference between us is Im not assuming things, I base my argument on either my own experiences as in things I saw with my own eyes or had done to myself, or statements of facts such as learning that HLA operated for 11 years without ever being properly licensed and that they lied to the state about their purpose in order to avoid certian inspections and regulations.
These are facts not opinions or assumptions.
Whereas opinions and assumptions seem to be the basis for her entire argument, along with talking about people shes never met and knows nothing about.
Something Ive never done.
