Sandman
In article <r9a0u918hjsbhv4jl6g9j3os0pvf2jq8f3@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
I haven't consulted my lawyer but I think I can safely say that you adopted someone else's terminology and used that to change the subject.

Sandman
So, someone else changed the terminology but didn't change the subject, but when I responded to him on base of the changed terminology, I was the one who changed the subject?

Eric Stevens
You can talk to him about whatever you like but when you talk to me about something other than that which we have previously been talking about, then you have changed the subject we are talking about.

Sandman
Please support this, where you were talking about something, and after Dave had changed the subject, I also changed the subject when responding to you.

Please post Message-ID's with dates.

If you would grow up and act like an adult, you'd see that you were wrong and either admit to your error or just silently walk away from the thread and try to forget it. Coming back for more time after time makes you a moron.

I guess this makes you a moron.

Yes, so you proved yourself wrong along with all the proof I submitted as well. Does that make you doubly wrong?

Eric Stevens
Prove that you know what is meant by semantics by avoiding the use of the term to quibble about word meanings.

Sandman
It's the other way around - *YOU* are the one that made an explicit claim about me not understanding semantics, the burden of proof lies oh so heavily on your frail shoulders, Eric. I have nothing to prove since I have made no claims one way or the other.

Eric Stevens
The relevant interchange started off as:

Sandman: A PSU, or power supply, ...

Eric Stevens interjects Make up your mind. You are the one who wrote "Supplying power !Power supply." A PSU can't supply power. All it can do is process the power with which it is supplied.

Sandman continues

sits *between* the power *source* and the power *target*.

----------------------------------------

Sandman
I didn't "continue" anything. You cut my sentence in half and responded only to one part of it.

Eric Stevens
At this point you deleted the tail of your sentence above and responded:

=============================>>>>>Sandman:

Sandman
A PSU, or power supply, ...

Eric Stevens interjects Make up your mind. You are the one who wrote "Supplying power !>Power supply." A PSU can't supply power. All it can do is process the power with which it is supplied.

Eric Stevens
Sandman Semantics, the trolls last resort. ==============================>

Sandman
Do you have a point?

For the record, and as has been shown, I know far more about the meaning of semantics than you do.

Eric Stevens
Please demonstrate what you meant by your remark about semantics in the passage quoted above.

Sandman
For what purpose?