🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5e3fng$gvs$2@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote:
>khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:
>
>>Note what argument is actually going on here.
>
>>One person is involved in proving "it is possible that X because I saw
>>X". The other is (as usual) trying to prove "it is not possible that
>>X because I didn't see X" (note, please don't confuse with
>>"it is possible that Not x because I saw Not x" that is actually valid).
>
>>For many years it amazed me that people would invert if's, try to
>>prove impossibility based (as in this case) on a single example (not
>>that more will do ;-), etc.
>
>>But now Science (doffing cap) is littered with them.
>
>I am NOT trying to prove that Antactic ozone depletion does not result
>in increased UV.  Jon is welcome to his anecdotal evidence of such,
>and I do not contest it.

Since you have (as usual) edided exactly WHAT it is you were saying
we can't really tell, can we?

In any case, I can see another point of confusionu (other than
swapping around antecendent and consequent, and moving a modal
operator over a negation, etc). What you are NOW claiming I said 
characterised your argument is NOT what I DID say to characterise your 
argument. Fortunately, we can see from what little remains of
what *I* said that this is so.

-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym