Tech Support?

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:16:28 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

No I don't. I've given the reason in another post only a minute or so
ago.

If a person you know always wears the same green shirt and you ask him
what he wore to the prom and he replies "same as always", you know for
certain that he wore the green shirt to the prom.

But in this case we do not know that the person always wears a green
shirt.

Yes you do - you have never seen me wear anything but the green shirt.

But I haven't known you very long and I'm enquiring about the past.

What we don't know is whether or not the person has been in the
habit of wearing an orange shirt. In that case the person's "same as
always" could have meant he wore an orange shirt.

Incorrect - "same as always" can not be either a green or an orange
shirt. "Same as always" must always be the same as the current state.

'Always' is a long time.

If a guy wearing a green shirt says the he wore "the same as always" to
the prom, he can not refer to clothing other than what he is currently
wearing.

You have never seen me post under any other alias than "Sandman", and
when you ask me what alias I used in the past and I answer "same as
always", that is unambiguously telling you that I used in the past what
I also use now, since "now" is a subset of "always" - or rather,
included in.

In English we have the ability to make statements such as "I've always
used Sandman". The failure of a person to make such an explicit
statement does tend to arouse suspicion.

Whatever degree of "suspicion" it leads to is irrelevant. The claim is
unambiguous and the degree of suspicion is only in relation to how much
you *trust* the person in question, not whether the statement in itself
is unambiguous or not.

Exactly true. Why do you think I asked?

If you ask your wife; "What necklace did you wear yesterday" and she
answers "same as always" and as far as you know, she has never ever worn
any other necklace than the one she is currently wearing, you wouldn't
call her answer unambiguous, but very clear and direct, and SHE wouldn't
feel a need to further explain what necklace that is since she know full
well that you are aware of the fact that she always wears one particular
necklace.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:08:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

You guys can argue about *ANYTHING*.

Try arguing about 1 = 1.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens.


There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:08:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

You guys can argue about *ANYTHING*.

Try arguing about 1 = 1.

I bet you would.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

No I don't. I've given the reason in another post only a minute or so
ago.

If a person you know always wears the same green shirt and you ask him
what he wore to the prom and he replies "same as always", you know for
certain that he wore the green shirt to the prom.

But in this case we do not know that the person always wears a green
shirt.

Yes you do - you have never seen me wear anything but the green shirt.

But I haven't known you very long and I'm enquiring about the past.

How long you have known me is irrelevant. "Same as always" includes
"right now", so what I am currently wearing must by definition be the
same as always before in the past.

What we don't know is whether or not the person has been in the
habit of wearing an orange shirt. In that case the person's "same as
always" could have meant he wore an orange shirt.

Incorrect - "same as always" can not be either a green or an orange
shirt. "Same as always" must always be the same as the current state.

'Always' is a long time.

THe length of "always" is irrelevant. "same" is definitive.

In English we have the ability to make statements such as "I've always
used Sandman". The failure of a person to make such an explicit
statement does tend to arouse suspicion.

Whatever degree of "suspicion" it leads to is irrelevant. The claim is
unambiguous and the degree of suspicion is only in relation to how much
you *trust* the person in question, not whether the statement in itself
is unambiguous or not.

Exactly true. Why do you think I asked?

You asked because you didn't know, not because you didn't trust me. My
answer gave you a 100% definitive answer to your question. You have no
reason not to trust my answer given the fact that I have never lied to
you and as far as you know, I am an honest person that tells the truth
and have nothing to hide about my past posting aliases. Any presumption
on your part to the contrary is based on nothing I have done or said and
lies solely in your own character.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

So you think that it is a direct answer.

No, I know it is a direct answer.

If it was a direct answer it would have pointed us to something
specific e.g. "Sandman".

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

But it doesn't do that. It points to "same as always". I don't think
any of us in this news group knows which alias you have "always" used
or for how long you have been using "sandman".

Yes you do. I use Sandman now, and "now" is part of "always". If I
answer "same as always" and is in reference to something other than what
I am currently using, then I'm lying. I don't lie, which you are well
aware of.

"Same as now" would have been quite specific

"now" and "always" are both specific time frames, one concerns the
present, the other concerns all time, including the present.

and we would have had no uncertainty about
what you were saying.

One would have no uncertainty about what I meant when I answered "same
as always" either.





--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

Amazing, and not "amazing" in a good way.

"Yes" is both direct and specific to the question as asked.

Tony comes in to help Eric dig.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:57:56 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

So you think that it is a direct answer.

No, I know it is a direct answer.

If it was a direct answer it would have pointed us to something
specific e.g. "Sandman".

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

This is why we keep on arguing.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

The question is specific and so too is the answer.

But it doesn't do that. It points to "same as always". I don't think
any of us in this news group knows which alias you have "always" used
or for how long you have been using "sandman".

Yes you do. I use Sandman now, and "now" is part of "always". If I
answer "same as always" and is in reference to something other than what
I am currently using, then I'm lying. I don't lie, which you are well
aware of.

I'm not at all sure of that. I'm not saying that I know you do lie. I
just don't know that you don't lie.

"Same as now" would have been quite specific

"now" and "always" are both specific time frames, one concerns the
present, the other concerns all time, including the present.

This is not and never has been a matter of logic. It's been a question
of getting to the truth of the matter. Your failure to give a direct
and unambiguous answer ("Sandman") has left open the possibility that
you may have used another name.

and we would have had no uncertainty about
what you were saying.

One would have no uncertainty about what I meant when I answered "same
as always" either.

I'm sorry, but I an others do have uncertainty what that answer to the
question may actually mean. The doubt is not directed specifically to
you but to common English usage in this type of situation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:58:05 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

Amazing, and not "amazing" in a good way.

"Yes" is both direct and specific to the question as asked.

Tony comes in to help Eric dig.

For God's sake, stop being defensively difficult. We are both trying
to explain a subtle point to you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

If it was a direct answer it would have pointed us to something
specific e.g. "Sandman".

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

This is why we keep on arguing.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

The question is specific and so too is the answer.

Much like the question and answer that started this.

But it doesn't do that. It points to "same as always". I don't think
any of us in this news group knows which alias you have "always" used
or for how long you have been using "sandman".

Yes you do. I use Sandman now, and "now" is part of "always". If I
answer "same as always" and is in reference to something other than what
I am currently using, then I'm lying. I don't lie, which you are well
aware of.

I'm not at all sure of that. I'm not saying that I know you do lie. I
just don't know that you don't lie.

But whether or not you trust me or not has no bearing on whether or not
the answer was direct or not.

The person answering a question need not take into account the level of
trust the receiver has for the him or her to formulate a direct answer.

"Same as now" would have been quite specific

"now" and "always" are both specific time frames, one concerns the
present, the other concerns all time, including the present.

This is not and never has been a matter of logic.

Of course it has. Peter said:

"It means you could use another nym"

No, it doesn't. That is an incorrect statement. "Same as always" does
not leave room for me using another alias than the one I used when I
made the statement. There is NO wiggle room. That's a logical fallacy.

It's been a question of getting to the truth of the matter.

Which is only a matter of whether or not you guys trust me or not, which
I don't care at all about whether or not you do. I never lie. You have
never seen me lie, nor have you ever even claimed I lie. Nor have you
ever provided substantiation for me lying. There is NOTHING in the past
that could ever suggest to you that "same as always" wasn't a 100%
truthful statement.

But again - you trusting me or not is totally irrelevant to whether or
not it was a direct answer. One can answer directly and be mistrusted,
or answer directly and be trusted. The level of trust does not affect
whether or not the answer is direct or not. This is your claim:

"It's not a direct answer and could be evasive."

That is incorrect. Had you said "The answer isn't specific and I don't
trust you", then you'd have another angle which doesn't deal (as much)
with factual logic.

Your failure to give a direct and unambiguous answer

I gave a direct and unambiguous answer.

("Sandman") has left open the possibility that
you may have used another name.

No, it did not. "Same as always" means I could not have ever used an
alias other than the one I currently use.

and we would have had no uncertainty about
what you were saying.

One would have no uncertainty about what I meant when I answered "same
as always" either.

I'm sorry, but I an others do have uncertainty what that answer to the
question may actually mean.

That is of no concern to me. The answer was perfectly direct and
unambiguous regardless of your following uncertainty that under no
circumstances stems from lack of information in the answer - but
probably due to some other factors.

The doubt is not directed specifically to
you but to common English usage in this type of situation.

That doesn't even make sense.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:58:05 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

Amazing, and not "amazing" in a good way.

"Yes" is both direct and specific to the question as asked.

Tony comes in to help Eric dig.

For God's sake, stop being defensively difficult. We are both trying
to explain a subtle point to you.

No you aren't. You and Peter mistakenly claim an unambiguous answer is
ambiguous. I am the one explaining that it isn't.

You have yet to counter the *fact* that "same as always" includes the
present. So whatever state something is in "now", "same as always"
includes it.

I have repeated this many times, you have dodged it. You need to come up
with a scenario where "same as always" can mean "same as always, apart
from currently".


--
Sandman[.net]