Mason C wrote: On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:12:32 -0700, Ike <binarydotike@gmail.com> wrote: Second, I was unaware that the enthusiastic comments regarding America Hears were at least partly by shills. That mode of marketing implies that those paid to do it may not even wear hearing aids. If true (and I trust Michael!), shame on AH! I've been here a couple years and
Frank Gilliland schrieb: Then try aluminum or cast iron, and a procedure which has a proven track record that is longer, by an order of magnitude, than the invention of the microbe filter. You can call it "a big hope" if you want, but I prefer to call it "a no brainer" since you already have the pot for cooking..... geez, how many times do I need to repeat myself before it finally
Marco van de Voort wrote: How about naming your assumpions and letting us have the luxory of deciding whether we would go choose to go before a judge with your assumptions :) Well, I thought already did. It talks about creating a large work only. Nothing more. Might I suggest that you look into what 'larger work' means. Here's a Google link to help. http://www.google
On 2008-06-23, Adem <adem.meda@gmail.com> wrote: Marco van de Voort wrote: Then again, rules of inference applies --mostly. No, they don't. The text is leading, and the only inference allowed is when you are in front of the judge. And I wouldn't go to a judge based on your assumptions :-) How about naming your assumpions and letting us have the luxory of deciding
