On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 19:51, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > He was talking about your comparison of the situations not being fair, > > > not about fairness in the business world with regard to Mandrake's IBM,s > > > and Red Hat's financial decisions. You know that and so does everybody > > > else. John was correct. > > > > That may have been what he was talking about, but my point is that > > that's completely irrelevant. > > One point I'd like to make is that you use the word irrevelant quite > excessively, mostly when you don't want to mentally encompass the other > person's point of view; the other person is always irrevelant, yet your > pov is not. In this case, once again, you blatantly obfuscate the idea > that John was putting across, which is that this is an apples to oranges > comparison; thus useless for sane debate in the arena in which you began > discussion. You comparison is perhaps useful in a one minded mentally > rabid debate, which seems to be where it's at right now. > > > >>>>snip rest of blah<<<<<< > > --LX
Nope, I say something's irrelevant when it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. If you frame something as a reply to something I say, but in fact what you're saying isn't relevant to the point I made, I'm going to call you on it, and that's what I did. His point is valid in its way, and if he'd made it in a separate post I wouldn't have replied to it the way I did here; but if he's going to say it as if it refuted what I said, then I'm sorry, but he's wrong. It doesn't. -- adamw
