XPost: alt.windows7.general   
   From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   R.Wieser  wrote:   
   > Frank,   
   >   
   > >  If you think Newyana2 needs to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles"   
   > > statement, you may want to enroll in Logic 101.   
   >   
   > :-) I did not expect him to prove it.  I'm not /that/ daft.   
      
        
      
     I think somebody complained about people not reading what was written,   
   but going off on a tangent. Who was that again!?   
      
   > But I think I may expect him to be able to explain /why/ he thinks its   
   > unsolvable.  Otherwise his classification isn't worth the ink its written   
   > with.   
      
     Sorry, same logical fallacy.   
      
   > And pardon me, I've more than once encountered people who use similar claims   
   > just because they either could not grasp the problem, or didn't actually   
   > want to try to solve it.  You know, Its too *hard*.   
      
     I vaguely remember mentioning it's always the other guy's fault.   
   >   
   > >  I've noted you tend to emit this logical fallacy when you get   
   > > too worked up (which is a quite common occurence). There's a   
   > > lesson in there.   
   >   
   > I disagree.  See above.   
      
     Another locigal fallacy.   
      
   > But, if you can quote something specific we could always discuss it.  For   
   > some odd reason I've got very little problem with being proven wrong.   
      
     Yep, and I've a 300-metre steel tower in Paris for sale, real cheap,   
   honest!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)