It is you who are incorrect in this case. The lack of qualification does not indicate 'some'...the inference is clearly 'all'. Which is why the thread topic and hypothesis have struck many readers who understand the rules of written English, as a generalized and ridiculous assumption.
And again, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who is stupid enough to actually make an "all people blah blah" and literally infer that every single person of the said group blah blah.
And again, when normal people talk, they are referring to their own observation, which anyone, even an idiot, should know is a tiny portion of the population.
What you are doing is intellectually dishonest. Rather than argue with the position of the OP, which is pretty much an observation and there is nothing to argue with anyway, you nitpick his semantics, assume the worst interpretation of your nitpick, and argue a strawman.
To the untrained eyes, this would make you look smart. But to those of us who (1) always gives a person the benefit of a doubt, (2) be intellectually honest and assume the best in a person's statement not the worst, and (3) apply proper and appropriate context to the person's words, there is nothing impressive with what you are doing.
So, the next time someone says "why are people so rude on the roadway?" after they've driven in Chicago traffic and you start your fake outrage of interpreting that person to say every single living person on the planet are rude on the roadway and then proceed to say the person is racist, bigoted, blah blah against every person on the planet, I will call you out on it.
Edit.
By the way, you should also apply the benefit of a doubt even to actual racists and homophobes. Some of them are not idiots. As someone who tries to attend lectures by members of hate groups like the kkk and such, I can tell you that some of their arguments are pretty convincing to the untrained ears.
You are doomed to failure if you assume your opponent is an idiot. Many times I've seen this happen at evolution vs creation debates. I'm talking about the scientists on the evolution side. If you ever go to one of these debates, expect the likely "winner" to be the creationist even though their arguments are complete bogus.


 ](*,)](/images/smilies/bang.gif)