I rest my case. There is only so much one can do, logically.
Roland Francis Toronto. > On Jul 22, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Mervyn Lobo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Roland wrote: >> >> You can't compare a grenade to a bullet. One is an explosive and the other >> a missile. Functioning of one cannot be compared with that of the other. >> You are therefore starting out from a false premise. And you say "everyone >> can understand this". It's like a Muslim saying "Islam is a religion of >> peace, everyone can understand this". The onus is his to prove it, not mine. >> >> Your other false premise is that you equate grenade malfunction with >> grenade partly exploding. I say malfunction can be defined as "not >> exploding" as well as "partly exploding". I also say that there is no such >> thing as a grenade "partly exploding". >> >> Since you are making the claim of "Grenades can partly explode", what kind >> of logic (Mervyn's Lobo's logic of course) would lead you to ask me to >> prove it? >> >> In any sane world you, not me, would be expected to get the information >> from "any army person". >> >> Thank you in advance for your earnest efforts. > > > > > Roland Francis, > It is quite obvious that you have not gone near any munition. > > Grenades do malfunction. They can and have partially exploded. You can > google the subject and find a lot of information that you are unaware of or > simply unable to understand. > > But why am I even suggesting this to you - as you will never cede a point > that is contrary to your beliefs. For example, you could have googled the > net about tigers in Canada but instead continue to insist that there were > tigers in the Canadian wilds. :-) > Mervyn
