Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
I simply applied the logical sense of what "or" means. ... Well, I guess they could have meant "or" in the either-or exclusionary ... Which only strengthens my case that G&M's analysis is uncertain because it does not include "worst case" assumptions throughout.
(And what's with the scare quotes that they used anyway? Does that imply that their "worst case" assumptions were not in fact worst case assumptions???)
Thus the hole in G&M's defenses that they opened up by bringing attention to Praga's alledged "misquotation" gets wider and wider. You guys really should leave this one alone. Just a little free advice. . . .  |
Criminies,
Warren, where did you learn grammar? You applied the
logical meaning to a
grammatical construct?
It does not need to be either-or. It could be used in the sense of "this, otherwise known as that," a possibility which you overlooked in your rush to accuse them of duplicity. Indeed, the use of quotes around "worst case" would indicate this was their intention.
It
is a misquote and they were right to point it out. You yourself have shown how the revised construction can be misunderstood. Also, if Praga got
that wrong, what else did he misinterpret? How
well does he understand what he read?
BTW, it's rather intriguing that you accuse them of engaging in an
ad hom (which I don't think it is) by pointing out the revision, yet you launch your own
ad hom based on their actual words and your misunderstanding of them.