On 07.09.13 18:00, Óscar Pereira wrote: > So now suppose (*my* scenario, not yours) that mutt used an external > program to view emails, and, we were discussing adding the feature of > viewing encrypted emails to mutt. By a reasoning *similar* to yours, > i.e. reasoning in a way coherent to yours, what would the conclusion > be?
Err ... please accept that you own that. It's your scenario, and your reasoning. Nothing to do with me, because I had _in_advance_ ruled out any need for an external viewer from my reasoning: On 07.09.13 19:51, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On the other hand, we use mutt to read received emails - no editor is > involved normally. So your postulate is false, due to there being no > connection between the two processes. If you were to put it forward as a use case purely of your creation, then we could discuss it, but not when you leap over to my side of the tennis net, and insist on whacking the ball there too. Apropos labelling, do please read my prior post carefully - I had only labelled the action of ascribing your thinking to me. One action does not fully define a person, and I have been careful not to label any person. (It's having words rammed down my throat which gets up my nose, if you'll forgive the imagery, not any interlocutor personally. The exchange has otherwise been informative and thought provoking.) If we can each just argue our own case, then the list can be spared a lot of noise. (Compare how quickly Christian won a quite a lot of ground by doing only that. Hint: By all means ask the question, but then let the respondent answer for himself, rather than insist on doing his thinking for him. If his case is weak, and the question relates to it, the wheels will fall off by themselves.) Erik -- If you're going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill
