JC, "[PERSON A]: I think X ; [PERSON B]: I think ~X because Y; [PERSON C]: Stop talking, [PERSON B]."
That's interesting. I think you got all backwards,
don't you? Is not your interpretation of A "I think X.
Period." is too short?
Maybe a better formalization would be as follows:
[PERSON A]: I think X because a) published DATA1,
b) published DATA2, c) research samples usually are better
grade for show-offs, d) die pictures show duplication
for no other than X reason, e) etc. etc.
[PERSON B]: You are wrong, it is ~X. Press releases
says "~X", and because someone emailed me from iABC.
And I hardly consider any of your evidences
conclusive.
[PERSON A]: Wording in documents is obscure, I suspect
intentionally, and published data strongly suggest
that the scenario ~X is physically impossible.
[PERSON B]: You are simply wrong, admit it, none of
your "evidences" can change it, it is "~X".
You are an AMD zealot wasting your
life in screwdriver shop, and want to undermine iABC.
[PERSON C]: ...
- Ali |
