Sandman
In article <60sej9hpe82iiov5iva77hgf5ebfhr6pff@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

Savageduck
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described so?

Sandman
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

PeterN
Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI corrected your English. And that's as far as I go with you English lesson.

Tony Cooper
The Popinjay will never admit to error.

Sandman
Indeed you won't. I, on the other hand, are free and willing to admit to errors, and have done so many times. Do you wish substantiations for that claim, Andreas?

Tony Cooper
He uses a Catch 22 form of logic in this area. For example, he maintains that to substantiate a claim that someone ignored a valid point in a post, you must cite something in which that person declared they were omitting reference to that point.

Sandman
Indeed. You on the other hand, use illogic, such as:

Tony Cooper 03/25/2014 08:09:46 PM <sjj3j9tcphc4s5ha6dlibj8h9cv2bgtcl6@4ax.com>

"If it isn't stated, it's ignored."

Tony Cooper
In other words, you must show where the person acknowledged the point to show that the person ignored the point.

Sandman
Incorrect. Good example of your rabid illogic though.

Tony Cooper
We are no better off than Yossarian in following this kind of logic.

Sandman
You wouldn't know logic if it ran you over. That's why you *REPEATEDLY* snipped out my explanations and logical reasoning regarding this topic that didn't fit your trolling agenda.