Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
My gosh, you work hard to find disagreement. In my sentence above,
please update "there are NET reflections" with "there may be NET
reflections".
Shirley, you can understand that the first statement is an absolute-
exclusive and the second statement is a conditional-inclusive and
are logically opposite statements, one false and the other true.
That is the beauty of reading for disagreement; you can always
justify the disagreement.
If readers spent just a small fraction of their effort interpreting
for agreement instead, discussion would flow so much more smoothly.
Interpreting an exclusive statement as an inclusive statement is
logically invalid.
To read for agreement, the reader examines statements in context
and ignores the minor inconsistencies that the author has made in
the prose. Taking each statement out of context and examining it
individually will provide a myriad of opportunities for finding
disagreement, if that is the objective.
Sometimes, there are net reflections existing where there is no
impedance discontinuity.
Excellent. Agreement.
Nope, not agreement. Your absolute statement was false. My conditional
statement is true.
There it is again; searching for disagreement.
If you had said 'sometimes', your statement would have
been true instead of false.
And is that not exactly what I did with my clarification to
the original sentence?
Are you sure that you do not read with the intent of maximizing
disagreement?
....Keith