| 1 |
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:27:59 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Circular argument. |
| 4 |
| |
| 5 |
| Let me repeat it in primary school language. |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
| A supported statement is one which has the form: |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
| <reason 1> <reason 2> ... <Statement> ... <reason n-1> <reason n> |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| In short a supported statement has reasons that aim to argue why the |
| 12 |
| statement is true. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And your definition of a primary package manager is: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
<reason 1> <statement> <reason 1> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
| You say that there is no such a thing as a primary package manager, |
| 19 |
| but fail to state any reason (here or in other mails) as to why this |
| 20 |
| is true. Instead of arguing why my support is false you just say that |
| 21 |
| I am saying things that are not true. This is an unbased accusation. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, I am claiming that your entire idea of a primary package manager is |
| 24 |
based upon circular logic and is thus invalid. It's like trying to |
| 25 |
debate the existence of green happiness -- since the thing the words |
| 26 |
describe is meaningless, there's no logical argument to be had. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 30 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives