<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>anonymous</b></i>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>anonymous</b></i>
I wasn't singling you out Seana, I was just saying that if several (3+) people on a message board agree on something about something someone else has said, than maybe their is some validy to their shared opinion. This goes for everyone, including SD. No need to play wounded duck, I wasn't solely refering to you.
Garyhairycheese</end quote></div>
2723 users are registered to the Cystic Fibrosis forum
A whopping 3+? Sorry, numbers don't create validity. There are more than three people that believe the Earth is flat. I'm sure there are more people that believe your opinion is, plainly put, bogus, so they win. Perhaps you should look in the mirror, and that if several (more than 3+) people on a message board agree you're wrong then their may be validity to that opinion. I'm sure you wouldn't like to turn your logic back on yourself though. Let's grow up here, Julie hasn't done anything wrong except encounter adults that act like children.</end quote></div>
I would agree that you can turn that logic around, and I already admitted that it pertains to everyone. The number three was just a quick number to represent "Several". Does that value mean anything is an absolute? No. I could just have easily made an analogy like you did using those who are ignorant and believe the earth is flat, and went into "several" thousand, maybe even "several" tens of thousands? Ratios/equivalencies don't matter. The point remains the same, and it doesn't matter what side of the coin you reside on. The end result of this entire discussion has been that she posted something in a forum that "several" (open to debate, just read the thread to see who disagreed with it being there) people who read and post here thought it belonged in the other forum, and felt it didn't pertain to CF. There were others who didn't care at all (I think this also represents several, some could argue a majority). So while there were "several" groups of people, all with different feelings as to if they cared where it went, if it should have an OT next to the title or not, or if it should be in the OT forum or not, those are all segregations of a probable vast majority if not totality that felt the post, in fact, had nothing to do with CF, and her rationale for it pertaining to CF was extremely weak.
For those who make comparisons to anyones detractors as being "children" for pointing out that someone frequently is, or has recently has been a hypocrit in a multitude of ways, so be it. I didn't see anyone saying "nee ner nee ner my daddy can beat up your daddy" anywhere in any thread in recent memory. I don't even recall anyone using profanity in any recent thread with dealing with others. Several of the wounded ducks on here like to take their own personal jabs at others when they see fit. To me as long as the sacred rules aren't broken, I don't see why anyone has to go running to daddy and being the actual "children". Turn about is fair play.