Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Charistophe,

You ignored a simple question.

"A bear is a mammal."

So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?


Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.

Is the statement "A bear is a mammal" followed by the statement "The bear may try to steal my picnic basket"? Because if not, this is entirely irrelevant as you are ignoring something to indicate that it is singular. Quit being ridiculous with useless analogies, please.

So you refuse to answer a simple question. Your argument is invalid then.

"A bear is a mammal" applies generally to each instance of a bear on the planet since "a bear" is being used in a non-specific, general way (and that is true in any context). Similarly, as already proven, the 3rd paragraph uses the indefinite article in "a model" in a non-specific general way. When something applies generally, it applies to each case. That is literally what 'generally' means.

So, you manage to completely misread something yet again. I complied with your request; I did answer your question. It's just not an answer you liked. As I pointed out, since your "A bear is a mammal" is not immediately followed by a statement saying "the bear", the analogy you are trying to make is completely invalidated. If you really didn't want to hear that answer so much, don't bother asking the question in the first place.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Charistophe,

You ignored a simple question.

"A bear is a mammal."

So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?


Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.

Is the statement "A bear is a mammal" followed by the statement "The bear may try to steal my picnic basket"? Because if not, this is entirely irrelevant as you are ignoring something to indicate that it is singular. Quit being ridiculous with useless analogies, please.

So you refuse to answer a simple question. Your argument is invalid then.

"A bear is a mammal" applies generally to each instance of a bear on the planet since "a bear" is being used in a non-specific, general way (and that is true in any context). Similarly, as already proven, the 3rd paragraph uses the indefinite article in "a model" in a non-specific general way. When something applies generally, it applies to each case. That is literally what 'generally' means.

So, you manage to completely misread something yet again. I complied with your request; I did answer your question. It's just not an answer you liked. As I pointed out, since your "A bear is a mammal" is not immediately followed by a statement saying "the bear", the analogy you are trying to make is completely invalidated. If you really didn't want to hear that answer so much, don't bother asking the question in the first place.

Since you are having trouble connecting the dots I will make it easier and re-point you to an example from my last 2 posts, which I guess you missed.

Lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.

Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'

If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.

By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.

In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."

You have 3 guns on your person, all of which have only the holster visible? Sincerely doubtful, especially since that would be 3 holsters. You'd have one holster visible, so therefore that would be the "it" referred to.

Also, the thing implicit here is that you are talking about visibility to and from a model, not through a model. It cannot fire, but nobody cares if the holster is all that's visible of an intervening model between the shooting model and the model being shot. Therefore, the sentence would not apply to intervening models, much like the sentences you are trying to apply to intervening models. Thanks for stumbling into something refuting your own argument!

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.

But without further context to make it more than one, such as mentioning having 3 guns available, I have no reasonable expectation to extend it past one. And that is the point you keep missing.

The situation of the 3rd paragraph will often involve more than one model as I have shown. In fact, without models in the way you have nothing that could be visibly blocking line of sight and therewith no need to actually check line of sight. What would block line of sight in the case of only a target model? The table? At any rate, it's pretty clear that the situation will often involve more than a target model and that is all that matters to our discussion.

Context provided by the instructions, not the situation. You are expected to check the visibility of "a model" right after drawing a line to "the target's body". Aside from the 'viewing' model, no other model is represented at this point in the instructions. I will repeat, at this point, you are not instructed to be concerned with the visibility of any other model. By including any other models in this consideration, you are adding to the rules.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:

First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.

By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.

Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").

It is still a generic, non-specific weapon we are addressing. Your assertion is that "generic non-specic" use allows for any and all to do this during the same event.

Ah, you are confusing "generic" with "general". No wonder your understanding is all out of whack.

"Generic" means non-specific so it's redundant to say along with non-specific.

"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases".

Ah, so that's it! Your understanding of the meaning of the words involved is a little off. Cool, so once you adjust your understanding to "general" and not "generic" you should be right on track.

The source you have been using states "not specific", as in "non-specific". So, if I can't use a term synonymous with the interpretation you've been using, then that means you are proving your own interpretation as crap.

Make up your mind.

col_impact wrote:
Also, you didn't really comment on this.

col_impact wrote:
But lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.

Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'

If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.

By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.

In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."

I would like your thoughts on the above.

You haven't been bothered to properly address half the restates I have asked you to. Why should I do the same?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.

But without further context to make it more than one, such as mentioning having 3 guns available, I have no reasonable expectation to extend it past one. And that is the point you keep missing.

The situation of the 3rd paragraph will often involve more than one model as I have shown. In fact, without models in the way you have nothing that could be visibly blocking line of sight and therewith no need to actually check line of sight. What would block line of sight in the case of only a target model? The table? At any rate, it's pretty clear that the situation will often involve more than a target model and that is all that matters to our discussion.

Context provided by the instructions, not the situation. You are expected to check the visibility of "a model" right after drawing a line to "the target's body". Aside from the 'viewing' model, no other model is represented at this point in the instructions. I will repeat, at this point, you are not instructed to be concerned with the visibility of any other model. By including any other models in this consideration, you are adding to the rules.

Cool, so no other models are part of the equation. The viewing model can shoot directly through walls and models in the way since they are not part of the equation.

Oh, but the context does talk about other models!



Oh, and visibility is only mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, not before.



And since the indefinite article is being used to refer to model in a non-specific and general way, "a model" can refer to each model in the situation whether its a target model or a model in the way or a terrain model.

It's all laid out here and this is entirely consistent with the context and what the rules actually say (and not what you have been reading into them)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/703020.page#8935504

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:

First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.

By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.

Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").

It is still a generic, non-specific weapon we are addressing. Your assertion is that "generic non-specic" use allows for any and all to do this during the same event.

Ah, you are confusing "generic" with "general". No wonder your understanding is all out of whack.

"Generic" means non-specific so it's redundant to say along with non-specific.

"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases".

Ah, so that's it! Your understanding of the meaning of the words involved is a little off. Cool, so once you adjust your understanding to "general" and not "generic" you should be right on track.

The source you have been using states "not specific", as in "non-specific". So, if I can't use a term synonymous with the interpretation you've been using, then that means you are proving your own interpretation as crap.

Make up your mind.

The source says 'general, non-specific'. You are saying 'generic, not-specific'. I pointed out you are confusing 'generic' with 'general'. 'Generic' does not mean the same thing as 'general'.

"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases", and you have been refusing to acknowledge the capacity of an indefinite article to apply in a general way.

In fact, the definition of 'general' defeats your argument.

If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid.

" Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum"

Applying the same criteria to you on several of his questions, and things I've pointed out on occasion, you would fall afoul of the same judgment. And this is ignoring that your debunking has often been debunked in return, perhaps you shouldn't be quite so dogmatic sounding.

 doctortom wrote:
" Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum"

Applying the same criteria to you on several of his questions, and things I've pointed out on occasion, you would fall afoul of the same judgment. And this is ignoring that your debunking has often been debunked in return, perhaps you shouldn't be quite so dogmatic sounding.

Incorrect. I have answered all questions posed and have dodged none. If you feel there is a question that I have dodged, feel free to re-post it.

I posed the same case to you as well. It looks like you are similarly dodging the case posed.

So I shall pose it to your again.

col_impact wrote:Lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.

Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'

If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.

By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.

In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."

Are you going to do the same thing as Charistoph and refuse to comment on the case posed that debunks your argument?

If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win.

Well, you haven't addressed my next to last post at all (the one before I pointed out you were the pot calling the kettle black) certainly as one thing. In fact, that was the one where I addresses the very thing you reposted here. It does seem a pattern to you, skipping over a lot of my posts without responding to them (only an occasional response).

So, go away with the condescending "If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win." crap (similar to the the statement you made to Charistoph), grow up and try to address this civilly. If I stop answering you, it's certainly not because you "won", it will be because I decided you weren't worth talking to any more. At this point, we've certainly reached diminishing returns and your responses have merely been regurgitation of your points while ignoring ours.

 doctortom wrote:
You have 3 guns on your person, all of which have only the holster visible? Sincerely doubtful, especially since that would be 3 holsters. You'd have one holster visible, so therefore that would be the "it" referred to.

Also, the thing implicit here is that you are talking about visibility to and from a model, not through a model. It cannot fire, but nobody cares if the holster is all that's visible of an intervening model between the shooting model and the model being shot. Therefore, the sentence would not apply to intervening models, much like the sentences you are trying to apply to intervening models. Thanks for stumbling into something refuting your own argument!

The answer you provide is obviously a silly one. Please provide a serious answer. It is well within the realm of logical possibility that someone could have 3 guns on their person with only their respective holsters visible.

The case posed is a logical case, not related to 40k, in order for me to show you how indefinite articles apply non-specifically and generally. Follow the logic of the sentences and either agree with my read or the read that your argument would give. But of course its already self-evident that my read is the correct one and your argument leads to an incorrect read, and the thread knows it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Well, you haven't addressed my next to last post at all (the one before I pointed out you were the pot calling the kettle black) certainly as one thing. In fact, that was the one where I addresses the very thing you reposted here. It does seem a pattern to you, skipping over a lot of my posts without responding to them (only an occasional response).

So, go away with the condescending "If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win." crap (similar to the the statement you made to Charistoph), grow up and try to address this civilly. If I stop answering you, it's certainly not because you "won", it will be because I decided you weren't worth talking to any more. At this point, we've certainly reached diminishing returns and your responses have merely been regurgitation of your points while ignoring ours.

Feel free to stop posting. My case has stumped you and your refusal to seriously address it is tantamount to a concession and the thread knows it.

So col and only col arguing a point , using a bizarre concept of grammar where you ignore the context of the rule - again?

Call it quits. You cannot possibly alter cols argument as that is not how they have ever behaved to my knowledge. It's a dialogue of the deaf.

col_impact wrote:
Cool, so no other models are part of the equation. The viewing model can shoot directly through walls and models in the way since they are not part of the equation.

Oh, but the context does talk about other models!

Spoiler:

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.

Oh, and visibility is only mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, not before.

Spoiler:

Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.

And since the indefinite article is being used to refer to model in a non-specific and general way, "a model" can refer to each model in the situation whether its a target model or a model in the way or a terrain model.

It's all laid out here and this is entirely consistent with the context and what the rules actually say (and not what you have been reading into them)

That's right, you cannot tell the difference between an introduction setting the stage and a set of instructions.

We are not told to consider other models' visibility in this capacity without stepping out of the instruction line.

col_impact wrote:
The source says 'general, non-specific'. You are saying 'generic, not-specific'. I pointed out you are confusing 'generic' with 'general'. 'Generic' does not mean the same thing as 'general'.

"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases", and you have been refusing to acknowledge the capacity of an indefinite article to apply in a general way.

In fact, the definition of 'general' defeats your argument.

If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid.

Refusal to recognize your own hypocrisy does not support your argument. If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid. You may want to review "general" in your spare time.

Remember we at this point in the instructions, we have not changed from one model attempting to view another. Consideration of other models' visibility in this manner is neither stated or suggested.

col_impact wrote:
Straight up dodge. Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum. We all know you won't openly admit to defeat. But the thread knows the example above debunks your argument and your unwillingness to address it is as close to a concession as you will ever give.

So I will ask it again . . .

Go ahead, I will give the same answer. Properly answer the other considerations I have presented, first. By refusing to do so, you are setting a hypocritical standard. I've called you out on several different points. In one case, you waved it off saying that it isn't necessary while ignoring how instructional context works. In another, you answered like a politician twice, repeating your core assertion without actually answering the statement under consideration.

In other words, you have been doing dodges left and right throughout this thread. By your own standards, you have been admitting defeat left and right. So, that's good to know, you admit you're wrong. Have a nice life, and good luck convincing people of your magic grammar classes which ignore huge amounts of words which provide context and relevance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So col and only col arguing a point , using a bizarre concept of grammar where you ignore the context of the rule - again?

Call it quits. You cannot possibly alter cols argument as that is not how they have ever behaved to my knowledge. It's a dialogue of the deaf.

Pretty much. I am putting him on ignore now due to his toxic ability to piss me off because of it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So col and only col arguing a point , using a bizarre concept of grammar where you ignore the context of the rule - again?

Call it quits. You cannot possibly alter cols argument as that is not how they have ever behaved to my knowledge. It's a dialogue of the deaf.

Using an indefinite article to refer to something in a non-specific and general way is hardly what I would call "a bizarre concept of grammar".

Also, context must be accurately understood. It must stick to the actual words of the rule or what those words directly infer. You are not allowed to read in whatever you want and call it context. That's fabricating context that is not actually in the rules.

I have not only presented an argument based soundly on grammar and context, but I have presented an argument that refrains from reading into the rule. The counter-arguments have run afoul of grammar and have read into the rules, producing a fictional context that is not the actual context.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Cool, so no other models are part of the equation. The viewing model can shoot directly through walls and models in the way since they are not part of the equation.

Oh, but the context does talk about other models!

Spoiler:

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.

Oh, and visibility is only mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, not before.

Spoiler:

Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.

And since the indefinite article is being used to refer to model in a non-specific and general way, "a model" can refer to each model in the situation whether its a target model or a model in the way or a terrain model.

It's all laid out here and this is entirely consistent with the context and what the rules actually say (and not what you have been reading into them)

That's right, you cannot tell the difference between an introduction setting the stage and a set of instructions.

We are not told to consider other models' visibility in this capacity without stepping out of the instruction line.

What is visible is not a concern until the 3rd paragraph. And as stated, the line of sight situation will almost always involve more than one model. So "a model" in "sometimes, all that will be visible of a model" can refer to a model in the way or a target model. "A model" is simply not specified and there will almost always be more than one model in the situation.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The source says 'general, non-specific'. You are saying 'generic, not-specific'. I pointed out you are confusing 'generic' with 'general'. 'Generic' does not mean the same thing as 'general'.

"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases", and you have been refusing to acknowledge the capacity of an indefinite article to apply in a general way.

In fact, the definition of 'general' defeats your argument.

If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid.

Refusal to recognize your own hypocrisy does not support your argument. If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid. You may want to review "general" in your spare time.

Remember we at this point in the instructions, we have not changed from one model attempting to view another. Consideration of other models' visibility in this manner is neither stated or suggested.

"General" means "applying to each case" as already stated.

The 3rd paragraph is the first time visibility is mentioned at all and the line of sight situation can involve any number of models. You can't have it both ways. Either the models in the way are there to be able to visibly block line of sight or they are not there and unable to provide any blocking of line of sight. Per the first paragraph we know that the context of the situation can involve any number of models and the 2nd paragraph follows from that context. Context applies across the board from the first paragraph to the last in the section of the rule. We just need to remember not to read into the context, as you are wont to do.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Straight up dodge. Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum. We all know you won't openly admit to defeat. But the thread knows the example above debunks your argument and your unwillingness to address it is as close to a concession as you will ever give.

So I will ask it again . . .

Go ahead, I will give the same answer. Properly answer the other considerations I have presented, first. By refusing to do so, you are setting a hypocritical standard. I've called you out on several different points. In one case, you waved it off saying that it isn't necessary while ignoring how instructional context works. In another, you answered like a politician twice, repeating your core assertion without actually answering the statement under consideration.

In other words, you have been doing dodges left and right throughout this thread. By your own standards, you have been admitting defeat left and right. So, that's good to know, you admit you're wrong. Have a nice life, and good luck convincing people of your magic grammar classes which ignore huge amounts of words which provide context and relevance.

I have dodged nothing. If you legitimately feel that I have dodged something then kindly restate your question or concern and I will address it. Unlike you I am interested in getting at the truth of an issue and not just winning the argument. So feel free to bring up your concerns.

But here you just seem to be at a point where you should be admitting defeat but cannot.

 Charistoph wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So col and only col arguing a point , using a bizarre concept of grammar where you ignore the context of the rule - again?

Call it quits. You cannot possibly alter cols argument as that is not how they have ever behaved to my knowledge. It's a dialogue of the deaf.

Pretty much. I am putting him on ignore now due to his toxic ability to piss me off because of it.

Not surprising since at this point your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Col - you can claim it, yet frankly nooone here sees it. THat should be a clue that maybe your argument isnt as strong as you claim. Every. Single. Time.

The context of the rule concerns the target model. We know this, and I suspect you do as well, and are arguing p[urely to generate an argument with Charistoph.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You have 3 guns on your person, all of which have only the holster visible? Sincerely doubtful, especially since that would be 3 holsters. You'd have one holster visible, so therefore that would be the "it" referred to.

Also, the thing implicit here is that you are talking about visibility to and from a model, not through a model. It cannot fire, but nobody cares if the holster is all that's visible of an intervening model between the shooting model and the model being shot. Therefore, the sentence would not apply to intervening models, much like the sentences you are trying to apply to intervening models. Thanks for stumbling into something refuting your own argument!

The answer you provide is obviously a silly one. Please provide a serious answer. It is well within the realm of logical possibility that someone could have 3 guns on their person with only their respective holsters visible.

The case posed is a logical case, not related to 40k, in order for me to show you how indefinite articles apply non-specifically and generally. Follow the logic of the sentences and either agree with my read or the read that your argument would give. But of course its already self-evident that my read is the correct one and your argument leads to an incorrect read, and the thread knows it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Well, you haven't addressed my next to last post at all (the one before I pointed out you were the pot calling the kettle black) certainly as one thing. In fact, that was the one where I addresses the very thing you reposted here. It does seem a pattern to you, skipping over a lot of my posts without responding to them (only an occasional response).

So, go away with the condescending "If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win." crap (similar to the the statement you made to Charistoph), grow up and try to address this civilly. If I stop answering you, it's certainly not because you "won", it will be because I decided you weren't worth talking to any more. At this point, we've certainly reached diminishing returns and your responses have merely been regurgitation of your points while ignoring ours.

Feel free to stop posting. My case has stumped you and your refusal to seriously address it is tantamount to a concession and the thread knows it.

Actually it wasn't a silly answer - it was an answer pointing out your analogy might be silly. It addressed the issue and pointed out where things differed from the actual example in the book we're trying to compare. Also, it helped shoot down your theory, so I guess that's why you just want to brush it off as silly. So, instead of brushing off my answer (which you seem to try to do EVERY SINGLE TIME someone gives you an "inconvenient" answer), maybe you should address MY points and show how your points are "self-evident", since they're only self-evident to you. Take Nosferatu1001's last post to heart.

Your case hasn't stumped me, just your blind ignorance of the use of context and the proper use of grammar - not what you are purporting to be the proper use of grammar. I might take Nosferatu1001's advice and sign off on this after all. If you want to be childish and treat is as a concession, feel free; I'm going to treat it as the equivalent of whacking the mule in the head with a 2 x 4 many times and the mule still not wanting to pay attention, or to repeatedly bringing the horse to the trough but him refusing to drink. Being too blinkered to see you're wrong doesn't mean that you're right just because people throw up their hands because you don't want to see sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - you can claim it, yet frankly nooone here sees it. THat should be a clue that maybe your argument isnt as strong as you claim. Every. Single. Time.

The context of the rule concerns the target model. We know this, and I suspect you do as well, and are arguing p[urely to generate an argument with Charistoph.

The context will most often include more models than just a target model.



The 3rd paragraph intentionally uses "a model" to refer to "model" in a non-specific and general way so "a model" can refer to a model in the way just as easily as it can refer to a target model.

Grammar does not support you. Context does not support you.

col_impact wrote:


Grammar does not support you. Context does not support you.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

He's waded through your arguments, he just doesn't buy them. Like most people here.

Bears are mammals.

Ninjas are mammals.


Coincidence?




I think this has gone around enough by this point. Moving on.