"Disaster" <disaster@disfanfic.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<unakidijcc5953@corp.supernews.com>...
> "esper41" <esper41@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disaster@disfanfic.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> > > I see, I was not attacking you personally, just pointing out that your
>  age
> > > group is not as intelligent as mine and that mine is not as smart as
>  the
> > > next category up. Don't get so offended, that would be making it
>  personal,
> > > it's not, yer hardly a unique case.
> >
> > I wasn't talking about that - it was the subject of the whole
> > argument.  However, as I am not representative of my entire age group,
> > it is pointless to attack my low intelligence; I may not be a unique
> > case, but plenty of people are.
> 
> The subject is your age group, not you specifically. The fact that you
> belong to age groups is beside the point. No one can be unique because if
> they were then they couldn't be part of the age group. The qualifications
> for being part of an age group is to be the same age. Everyone has to be
> the same, otherwise they don't fit into that age group. Hence, no one is
> unique. I have not attack your intelligence.
OK, now I'm confused.  You seem to think that I'm arguing that people
of the same age group are of different ages; I have absolutely no idea
how you came to this particular conclusion, but I was arguing that
people of the same age are unique in other aspects - including
intelligence and maturity.