Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (291005)	8/27/2002 11:54:53 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"So there ARE some laws which - if broken - you don't favor the people be punished...." There is no way to conclude that was stated or implied. A non definitive set of alternative statements was made. The above conclusion could not be logically concluded from that set. Your conclusion is only one possible subset of the non definitive set of alternative statements. It was a good subset that tested you ability to discern or not. "You answered in the negative on my first question, and refused to answer the second.... Also typical for" you. On the first question which is? Do you believe in that for ALL laws, and for ALL persons? Again there is no way to conclude that was stated or implied. On one of your examples a comment was made that it was a falsely stated proffer. It had a false element in it. There was no refusal to answer any question. Not answering a question the way you like or at all is not refusing to answer. Chosing not to respond to any question at any time is not refusing. But especially true if a reply post offers clarification examples and objections. Anyone expressing "your refused" is childishly ranting. Posting such to a reply post that offers clarification examples is very childish. So now you have 1 3 and 4... I have seen many of your posts that fail logic tests. In chess there is check and checkmate. Mostly you see checkmates that are really checks and sometimes miss the logical stalemate you have proffered.