On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jul 13, 2008, at 3:35 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
It isn't a question of reading Phil.
That's not the issue here.
When there is conflict on an issue, unless you ascribe bad faith to
one
side, then it's never just an issue of basic reading. It's always
more involved
than that.
I've got an entire academic field of literary studies that would
disagree with you.
I mean, I do not see how we can justify making the position Ken is
holding here one we demand sources for. It is demonstrably a less
difficult and complex inference than ones we allow by default. I do
not doubt your good faith in asserting otherwise, but unless there's
something I'm missing, you are completely and utterly wrong.
-Phil
I tend not to say ditto on mailing lists, but I'll make an exception here.
Speaking in my capacity as a mailing list reader (and not as a mod), Will,
it is extremely annoying to see you persist in being completely and utterly
wrong. You hit rock bottom in this argument several days back; I suggest you
stop digging.
Johnleemk