On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 16:15:31 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On 9 Jul 2003 13:39:50 GMT, Chris Croughton used
to say...

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:06:38 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:20:50 -0400, Arny Krueger used
to say...

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...

He's already admitted that his work tools
are "trivial and error ridden".

Prove that with an in-context quote, please.

quote Message-ID:

KA Not much of a "scientist" are you if you knowingly use defective
tools?

AK Every tool I use is either trivial or in some sense defective!

/quote

Ever considered the difference between the words 'or' and 'and'? AK
used the latter, you misquoted it as the former. There is also a lot of
difference between "in some sense defective" and "error ridden".

Ever considered the difference between pedantry and paraphrasing?

Your so-called "paraphrase" was not a "restatement of a text or passage
in another form or other words", it was so incorrect that it was not a
'restatement' at all, and your so-called 'proof' was nothing of the
kind. Your statement implies that all of his work tools are both
trivial and "error ridden" (which phrase implies so full of errors that
they are useless) whereas what he said was that he uses some tools which
are 'trivial' (in hardware, a screwdriver or hammer would be a
'trivial' tool, in software a 'copy' command would be regarded as
'trivial'), and others which have some defects (all tools have some
defects, this does not mean that they are "error ridden").

I have no problem with nothing being perfect, what I do have a problem
with is someone relying on that non-perfect tool giving a definitive and
all encompassing answer.

Like your answer saying that the statement which you misquoted is a
'proof' of your "error ridden"? Yes, you did indeed rely on a
non-perfect (and it seems "error ridden") tool to make that statement --
the tool used being your brain. Please don't use it again to make
definitive answers...

Chris C