harry wrote: >>If the premises of the other side not understood or recognised then it may >>seem > >>illogical.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >Premises? No, just simple definitions. > >They're using well accepted and understood terms, and the definitions of >those well understood terms simply rule out what they're saying -- it's >as though they said, "Black is really white". It's false, by definition. > >If they've redefined common words and terms, they should bloody well say >so -- that's not "premises" which are in question, it's plain old >communication. > >What they were claiming was silly. If they actually meant something >else, which wasn't silly, they should have claimed that, instead. > >If they said something other than what they meant, is it the fault of >the listeners that they weren't understood? You aren't listening now. "Premises? No, just simple definitions." harry
