SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (17258)6/21/2001 12:34:20 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
You made the statement you made, and it means what it reads, and what I said it meant.

I made the statement I made and it means what it reads, but not what you said it meant.

The statement was in response to my sentence, and it was not qualified such as a person would have done if he had meant to only refer to a couple or three words of the sentence.

I agree completely. It was a response to your whole sentence. If you say the stats support A and B, and I say "they show nothing of the sort", then if they support either A or B but not both, I am correct. The fact that the statement A+B is false if either A or B is false is basic logic. If I was referring to only part of your statement then you might have a point (if you assume that part is correct), but you are right I was referring to the whole statement. If the statistics do not support any part of it they do not support the support the statement as a whole and my statement about the statistics saying no such thing would be 100% correct. If you had made a statement in the form of "the stats show A or B to be true" then you would be correct but you did not. Its possible that some might see me as nit picking but nit picking or not I am correct. I was prepared to drop this part of the argument because it might be seen as nit picking but you apparently wanted to continue it.

Also since you apparently wanted to refer to the 2nd part of your original claim in isolation from the first part I dropped my nit picking and did go ahead and reply to the substance of that argument, but instead of responding to that, you seem to want to remain hung up in a less important argument and one where you are clearly wrong.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News