Posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2008, at 16:44:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-dsngnuos? » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 16:30:48
> >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.
What concerns me here is the phrase,[...they >have to<...and they have to >pretend<...].
After reading your reply and what you wrote, could you post here your opinion as to why there has not been a reply to me with the criteria/rationale, and clarification that I have requested? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and be better able to respond accordingly.