Posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 16:30:48
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-dsngnuos? » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2008, at 20:52:43
>You wrote that[...they have to respond to a ruling that is defensible....]. I ask as to if there could be a ruling that is not defensible?
Well, yes, IMO.
>If so, what in your opinion could that mean if there was a response that was not defensible?
You wrote,[...they have to pretend that there is more logic to it than there actually is...]. Could you post here what authority you could use to say that?No authority Lou. It just popped into my head.
>For if one has to pretend something, then could that mean to you that a false assertion could be made as an answer to the request for criteria/rationales/clarification? If so, why?
I can't see why not.
>For could not a reply be the honest criteria/rationale/clarification?
Yes, it could be.
poster:Sigismund
thread:808496
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080424/msgs/828930.html