Re: "Shared" procedure division code

In article <dd87q9$sci$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>On 8-Aug-2005, docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> As stated previously: 'Note that I said 'overwhelming majority of cases',
>> not 'all'... but I have *never* found a case where the answering question
>> could not be phrased in a manner that would turn the dialogue away from
>> the seriocomic interchange you posted into something a bit closer to what
>> I would call 'rational discourse'.'
>
>Obviously switching the conversation into a discussion based upon "answering a
>question with a question..." is more fun, even if it is quite a bit further to
>what I would call "rational discourse" about the original topic.

Obvious is in the mind of the beholder, Mr Brazee... but if others feel
more comfortable in addressing 'answering a question with a question' or
in generating 'But what about...' scenaria than they do in examining how
the matter at hand then it might be best that they are given an easy way
out.

DD

.