Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Rather than quote them, which you couldn't do, you've moved to your own "everyman" and his take on the conversation. It's a nice trick -- since it's inventive and hypothetical, it's irrefutable. I don't think you are characterizing either Harris or Klein fairly, but whatever.
You are not an everyman. Moreover, the idea that an everyone would have a worthwhile take on their conversation is silly. Everyman doesn't give a shit. You listened to the podcast because you care more than Everyman, and because you're a Harris fan, a Klein hater, or both. Or because the subject moves you -- I don't know. If you have something useful to say about their dialogue, it's because you care enough to engage with what they actually said.
|
The use of “everyman” was an attempt to convey how I think an everyman, as opposed to a lawyer, would hear the conversation.
This was in response to you citing a disconnect between how we might hear the conversation and how a non-lawyer might.
Threaded Mode