On 7 February 2018 at 17:25, Peter T. Breuer <ptb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:" >> >> On 7 February 2018 at 16:34, Peter T. Breuer wrote: >> > I'll repeat the paragraph from my summary this morning. >> >> Please don't, your sophistry is still off-topic. Repeating it doesn't > > Kindly explain why explaining is off-topic in your opinion. > >> make it any less so. > > Sophistry \Soph"ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.] > The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.] [1913 Webster] > > Correct. I am exact, which is the minimum anyone can be. > >> The insight you finally gave me credit for wasn't even mine > > It is. Kindly point to somebody who says it before you? For example, I > see from you Tue 16.45: That was the first time I said it, in: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-02/msg00029.html Then again in: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-02/msg00031.html Then again in: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-02/msg00034.html Then again, referring you to an earlier post, in: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2018-02/msg00041.html Only then did you finally get your head out of your arse, saying "An interesting new theory, if late to the party." It was neither new nor late, you just refused to see what was being said. Maybe if you spent less time expecting formal logic in response to drivel you'd be able to communicate like a functioning human. Now please, piss off.
