From: noemail@basdxcqvbe.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:17:03 -0700 (PDT)   
   Joe Monk  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > >They clearly state that new language named NB was the   
   > > successor to B, which was then later renamed C.   
   >   
   > If you leave out the NB aside comment, since that is what it is, the   
   > quote reads:   
   >   
   > "Thus, the problems evidenced by B led us to design a new language   
   > that ... was dubbed C."   
   >   
      
   " ... was [later] dubbed C."   
      
   With your edit, that was missing some pertinent info.  I.e., I think   
   you changed the meaning.   
      
   Why would you (or I) "leave out the NB aside comment"?  It clearly   
   states what you're attempting to disprove:   
      
   "Thus, the problems evidenced by B led us to design a new language   
   that ... [was] name[d] NB."   
      
   Also, leaving out the "aside comment" here completely ignores the   
   corroborating information in the original article I cited, which had an   
   entire section on NB.  I guess if I ignore the sun, then I can live all   
   night long and claim there is no such thing as daylight ...   
      
   I simply don't understand why you cherry-picked two sentences, chopped   
   and diced them up to mean what you wanted them to mean, willfully   
   ignored the entirety of the article I cited, and probably the entirety   
   of article you cited too (which I haven't read).   
      
   I see no point in continuing this.  It seems that you're set in your   
   false belief, even in the face of contrary evidence, which we both   
   provided.   
      
      
   --   
   The Chinese have such difficulty with English ...  The word is not   
   "reunification" but "revenge".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)