Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8506229" data-attributes="member: 16814">You've changed the example. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I'm not advocating for the OP's position at all.  In the other thread, I'm having a disagreement with the OP on how he applies this framework.  I'm not at all convinced it's even a coherent approach to the rules (at least, some of their other responses don't seem to hold to the required thinking).  The way that the OP says "meaningful" is to be defined by each table really robs this approach of any teeth, and seems more of a rhetorical tool to get the framework to be accepted because how the OP seems to be using "meaningful" is not generic at all.  Personally, I have a great dislike of weasel words in things, and especially those that are intentionally meant that way, such as how "meaningful" is being used here.  That's because the general result is that so much fits inside the box when the word is allowed to flop around, and this is claimed later as supportive of a more restrictive meaning.  If you're going to present your own interpretation of the rules, why weasel?  Say what you do!</blockquote>