From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2004 - 22:58:07 CST
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Since the Subject header is not defined to carry such information in a
>>netnews environment, software SHOULD NOT attempt to interpret it. It's
>>defined to be "unstructured", that's how software should interpret it.
>
>
> You weren't the first to bring this up (at least not in the quoted
> message), but I'm finally sufficiently annoyed to pick on the point.
>
> What do you mean by "interpret"? I don't know of any software that
> attempts to treat a header as high-level code and execute it without
> compiling.
>
> Next, in two consecutive sentences you first state that software
> SHOULD NOT attempt to interpret something, then state *how* software
> should interpret it. I see an inherent contradiction.
You evidently realize that "interpret" has multiple meanings, yet
you then proceed to fall into the logical fallacy of equivocation.
Please study
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################