Posted: Sep 05, 2017 7:35 pm
by Zadocfish2
DavidMcC wrote:Thomas, In demonstrated it on pages 6 and 7 of the LQG thread, years ago, OK. You obviously didn't bother to read it, in spite of the many occasions that I have linked to it.
(Late edit for spelling)


Um... Instead of responding to a point, or even posting a link to the relevant thread, you're just... mentioning that you once did post links to a possibly-relevant thread?

(Already dealt with, in post #159.)


You just made a reference to a reference you made to another thread, in which a possibly-relevant argument was made years ago. As an argument.

Sorry, that... really doesn't do your point any favors. Actually, I think it can be called an "alleged point" now... there's two degrees of separation from the actual argument you may or may not be trying to make...