Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3164058" data-attributes="member: 3929">Ok, so let's define terms!X: Share InfoY: Tell us not to.That leaves: X unless YWhich becomes: If not X, then YAlso: If not Y, then XIn English: If we arn't sharing info, then it's because you told us not to.Also: If you don't tell us not to, we are sharing info.I have no problem with your postulate so far.You then continue by saying that "telling us not to" is a necessary condition for sharing.In two sentences you have contradicted yourself, and pass this off as an argument!Artoomis, this is the third time in this thread you have made an error in the language and logic foundations of your arguments, and yet continued to support their conclusions despite the demonstrable unsoundness of the premises. In view of this, how am I to believe that you will be persuaded by even the most rigorous arguments? What point is there in discussing this with you when you distort logic and language either by error or artifice?</blockquote>