Re. Dietary Fibre

[Carvill John]

MalignD wrote:

>You must admit, Carvill, your "logic" is a little hard
>to follow.

Sorry you find such a simple point hard to follow. I'll try to
explain it to you.

>First you said:
>
>Don't want to put words in your trap, but you seem to
>be saying that I'm merely offering a tautology.  That
>doesn't follow quite, but I think that's your point.

No, I'm not saying that.

>Now you say:
>
><<I merely suggested that the reason MalignD doesn't
>think it's any good is because he doesn't appreciate
>it, rather than the other way round.>>
>
>--which suggests to me that you believe a tautology
>has direction, that "doesn't appreciate = doesn't
>think it's any good," is different logically from
>"doesn't think it's any good = doesn't appreciate."

Suggest to yourself whatever you please. You are either misconstruing or 
deliberately avoiding my point.

What I meant was that you do not 'appreciate' Vineland, therefore you do
not think it's any good. Ie., your failure to appreciate it is what leads
to your failure to recognise that the book is good. I was using 'appreciate'
in the generally accepted sense of meaning 'perceive the inherent quality'.

Clear?

And could you stop with the 'Carvill' shit? We don't all hide behind 
embarrassing self-applied nicknames.

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963