>That is not proof. It is your assumption based on the "shiny metal is
>present ergo the whole thing is better assumed to be gold until no shiny
>metal is visible any more" formula.
I read your posts with interest - in part because they often function as
rhetoric far better than they do as structured arguments - and that is
rare and interesting on this list - and in part because you clearly know
your stuff technically. But again and again (twice in the response to cjs)
you return to variations on the claim made above.
Could you point out any posting made to this list in recent days that
implies the formula you state? I do not know anyone who works with i-mode
on this list who believes it.
Received on Tue Jun 18 11:35:08 2002