John K, oRox, and I are all reaching for our Pez.

>John,
>
>Back from the dentist....
>
>Please answer the following 6 questions, which you have avoided so far. You have made several statements, listed below, that you have not yet substantiated. It's a matter of accountability.
>
>1)
>>Having a conservative outlook and what Dave is implying are two different things.
>
>What, specifically do you *think* I am implying?
>
>2)
>>>I think there are also regional differences that can account for different attitudes. Here in the South, we routinely open doors for ladies, teach our kids that you don't refer to adults by their first name, etc. etc. You yanks have total disregard for such notions - as a rule.*g*
>>
>>That's BS...
>
>Which part of Harvey's paragraph do you consider BS?
>
>3)
>>Let's see, during the process of hiring somebody, it is illegal to ask the age of the applicant... It is illegal to discriminate against somebody on the basis of their age...
>
>Once again, where in the world did you get *hiring discrimination* or any kind of discrimination from anything that I have posted? Facts, please.
>
>4)
>>Your so-called facts, and I use the word facts loosely, won't support any conclusion worth putting stock in ...
>
>How do you know, when you have not even seen all of the facts yet?
>
>5)
>>>Your statement is based on which facts? I am attempting to gather some facts. You are attempting to refute a theory without stating any facts to back up your position.
>
>>How about the body of common knowledge. To correlate age with civil behavior, knowledge, etc is totally without merit..
>
>Where is that common knowledge documented? C'mon, John. This is sloppy logic you are handing out here, and you certainly wouldn't let anyone else get by with a statement like that. You *can't* cite any references or facts to back up your position, can you?
>
>6)
>>You are dillusional..
>
>Based on what *facts*?