Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

2006-01-06 Thread Tomasz Mloduchowski
Aron Griffis wrote: > Duncan wrote: [Wed Jan 04 2006, 02:49:39PM EST] > >>Forget formal logic, it still "begs the question", in that it "begs >>that the question be asked". > > > No, the reason you used the expression "begs the question" is because > it sounds familiar to you. Otherwise you wou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

2006-01-06 Thread Aron Griffis
Duncan wrote: [Wed Jan 04 2006, 02:49:39PM EST] > Forget formal logic, it still "begs the question", in that it "begs > that the question be asked". No, the reason you used the expression "begs the question" is because it sounds familiar to you. Otherwise you would have said something like "bri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

2006-01-04 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Duncan wrote: Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:34:42 +: On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:26:44 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | That begs the question... No it doesn't. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html Forget formal logic,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

2006-01-04 Thread Duncan
Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:34:42 +: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:26:44 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | That begs the question... > > No it doesn't. > > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html Forget formal logic, it still