Warp wrote:
>   (Well, I didn't actually keep my promise. I succumbed into trying to
> explain it, once again, to Darren in a previous post I made today. Let's
> see if it helps this time. If not, then I suppose this is hopeless.)

You had a very clear explanation. The problem seems to be that when people 
say "I understand exactly what you mean. Here is why you're wrong" then your 
response seems to be "you must not understand what I mean."

We (at least I) do actually understand what you're trying to say. But the 
conversation is going:

You:  "If X then Y."

Us: "Never X."

You:  "Yeah, but *if* X, then Y!"

Us: "We understand. But X is never the case. Do you undertand that?"

You: "But all I'm saying is, *if* X, then Y! I'm not saying X. I'm just 
saying If X Then Y. There's no need to be afraid of X. X isn't special."

Us: "No, X isn't special. But X, regardless of which specific X, is never true."

We're trying to figure out why you keep advocating "If X then Y" when X is 
never true, and to figure out if you understand that X cannot now or ever be 
true, regardless of what specific traits you plug into the formula for X.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message