RE: [OT] Sea Leopard

Ryan M Gill wrote:

>>OK, that makes sense.  Armor wasn't their strong suite, was it?  Of
>>course, most of the terrain they fought on didn't beget huge North
>>Africa/Russian Steppe-style tank battles, either.
>
>Hmm. There was this big area of land that they captured called
>Manchuria that has pretty big wide open spaces. Korea isn't a big
>swamp either.

Yeah, and China and Korea had HUGE tank forces - it takes 2 to tango, 
remember.  Besides, Not I said MOST of the terrain.  I was thinking of
the 
island campaigns, Burma, etc.... If I had said ALL the terrain they
fought 
in, then ytou'd have a point.  MOST and ALL are not the same thing.

*RANT MODE ON*

this is actually a minor irritation of mine on the list, and I'm not
sure if 
it bugs anyone else or if I'm just sensitive, but here goes.  I've
noticed 
that when someone makes a statement about a generalization, people 
immediately cite a given exception to the generalization, and present
that 
as a refutation of the generalization.	While it is important for anyone
who 
states a generalization to remember that there are exceptions to the
rules, 
it's also important to remember that the exception does not necessarily 
refute the rule.  Let's suppose I come from a small town in the middle
of 
nowhere (I do, actually, but not the one in this example).  Let's say of
the 
500 people who live in the town, 400 of them drive pickup trucks.  If I
say, 
"Most people from Beeyeffee drive pickups,"  And someone says, "But I
know 
Jonny Bob Roscoeson, and he's from Beeyeffee, and he drives a station 
wagon!" you HAVE cited an exception, but have in no way refuted the
truth of 
my generalization.

Again, I repeat, just because a generalization is not ALWAYS true, does
not 
mean it is not USUALLY true!!!!!

*RANT MODE OFF*

Thanks for letting me vent.

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________