Another headline

[Laurence Horn]

Wasn't Wilson just suggestion that "too much [of X]" is ipso fact a bad thing for any X, whether X is corporate influence, dark chocolate, or good sex?  Sorry if I'm missing something here.

LH

On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:

> I don't object too much to the phrasing (only to any corporate influence on public policy).  In a democracy there are various interest groups, each with its own ideas of what would be good policy.  (In the 18th century they were called "parties", and deprecated as undesirable in a republic -- but those were the days when the "common good" was the desideratum.)  So some influence from each of the interests is acceptable.
> 
> Joel
> 
> At 10/8/2014 08:46 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:
> 
>> "Is too much corporate influence on public policy a bad thing?"
>> 
>> Does that question make sense? If corporate influence on public policy is a
>> *good* thing, then how can there be too much corporate influence? If, OTOH,
>> corporate influence on public policy is a *bad* thing, then why isn't any
>> corporate influence at all a bad thing?
>> 
>> Am I just plain stupid?
>> 
>> Youneverknow.
>> --
>> -Wilson
>> -----
>> All say, "How hard it is that we have to die!"---a strange complaint to
>> come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
>> -Mark Twain
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org