Re valid posts

[danderso@xxxxxxxxxxx (David Anderson)]

Jean:

>Dave writes,

>The Spice Girls sell lots of records, so they
>must be one of the most interesting musical acts on the planet.  A guy 
>like Rainer Ptacek toils away in obscurity, so he must not be very good.

>The first sentence is correct, the second incorrect.

What?  This has got to be the most egregious example of taking something 
out of context in order to sound "authoritative" that I've ever seen on 
this list.  I should have expected it, though.

The Spice Girls thing was hypothetical, extrapolating on this piece of very 
silly "logic" from you:

>Sorry, Dave, if listmembers are interested, it's all legit.
>Threads die automatically if no one responds--that indicates that no one 
>is interested.  If people respond, they are interested, and that is what
>validates a thread.  Jean

This was the part you so conveniently left out:

>I disagree.  If you follow this very simplistic line of thinking to its 
>logical conclusion, the more people respond, the more interesting a thread 
>is.  The mob rules, right?

It wasn't a statement of fact, so how could it be correct or incorrect?  I 
know the difference between "popular" (not a subjective term) and "good" or 
"interesting" (highly subjective terms).  Next time, read and understand it 
all before responding.

- --Dave