I am possibly the nastiest person you or this group has ever seen.
However, I'm handing my pinball crown to you. You have consistently
misinterpreted what Larry has been saying, while expressing your
ideas rudely to boot.
On Monday, July 13, 2009, at 1:33:51 PM, you wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Larry Constantine wrote:
>> The operant clauses there are: "have no reason to believe" not
>> "can't imagine"; "resulted in a dramatically better" not
>> "contributing to"; and "within the constraints of time."
> Have "no reason to believe" while not exactly the same, is quite
> interchangeable with "can't imagine." Looks like hair splitting. You
> can blame the interpretation, or you can look at how it can and is
> interpreted and be aware of it.
I can imagine that the supreme being is a spaghetti monster. I have
no reason to believe it. The two phrases are in no way
> Is if far fetched that "I have no reason to believe" is taken as "I
> don't really see how it would have helped?" You're not talking night
> and day here, more like 12pm and 12:01.
Yes, "I have no reason to believe that it would help," and "I don't
really see that it would have helped," are pretty close to the same
meaning to me.
A good response to either would be to provide a reason to believe or
assistance in seeing why it might have helped. You did neither. You
trashed the poster.
Not well done, even from my position as the recognized International
Agility is not an inescapable law of purity
but a pragmatic principle of effectiveness. -- Marc Hamann