Sandman
Incorrect. It is a lie when the person make a claim and refuse to support and AND refuse to admit it was incorrect. Those are his two options. You either substantiate your claim or admit it was misguided or incorrect. If you fail to do either, you are also fully aware that you are incapable of supporting your claim while at the same time not retracting it - that makes it a lie.

Eric Stevens
Your primary mistake is in thinking there are only the two options.

You also are mistaken if you think that refusing to support is the same as not being able to support.

Sandman
At first it can be a mistake, or it can actually be correct.

When Eric says this:

Eric Stevens 11/28/2013 <s14d99tpigvh1jt1g2idvq17u7j8h16t9q@4ax.com>

"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'."

He has made a claim about my knowledge about a word. In my followup I stated that his claim was incorrect and his two choices were these:

1. Ok, so maybe I don't know whether or not you properly understand it, but it was my assumption you did not based on this:

Eric Stevens
You had already had several examples of this and denied every one of them.

Sandman
2. You don't, here is a quote from your where you are using the word incorrectly:

Eric Stevens
Ditto.

Sandman
If he had done 1, then I could have corrected him and told him where he got it wrong.

Eric Stevens
That's exactly what you do. It never penetrates your skull that you may have got it wrong.

Sandman
If he had done 2, and was correct, I would have admitted to my mistake without blinking an eye.

Eric Stevens
The evidence is that you don't/won't do that.

Sandman
He choose to do neither. HIs following posts were:

1. Talk about a "black box" analogy that may, to a laymen, describe the usage of the word "protocol" in some instances, but in no way supported his initial claim that I hadn't properly understood the meaning of the word. Merely offering up your own simplistic understanding of a word doesn't servce as proof that someone else doesn't understand it

2. Said that I had claimed that "protocol meaning software", which I hadn't. This was a pure fabrication on his part, and all the posts he could find were ME telling YOU that "protocol" has very little to do with software - the complete opposite of his claim.

Eric Stevens
You spent a lot of time trying to show that protocols were not found in software. This was quite true and was only necessary as a result of you determinedly misunderstanding what Tony Cooper had said.

Sandman
I'm quite sure I've exaggerated many times in my life, but never with the intention to mislead. You are free to ask me at any time if you feel that something may be "embellished" by me, and I will either explain more or clarify what I meant and correct anything that was incorrectly claimed by me.

As I've shown many many times, I have exactly *NO* problem admitting to mistakes I make, ...

Eric Stevens
Haw!