"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a32a605@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> >> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
> >> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
> >> > stated inflexibilities.
> >
> >> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
> >> is a flaw in your reasoning?
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> > of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.

> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> your mind if proven wrong.

I said no such thing.

> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of  my time.

See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.

> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> > validity of any arguments I make.

> Of course it doesn't.  But it does play into whether or not I want to
> spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.

Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
argument? Is it the validation you seek?

Post a reply to this message