Eric Stevens
On 18 Sep 2014 15:47:22 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <p38l1ahdn5d4hqj2f23g3poskolprrir91@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam
that's the whole problem.

floyd cannot acknowledge that there are other completely valid meanings.

Eric Stevens
If you want to argue with what he said then you have to use the same meaning that he did.

nospam
i used the common meaning of the term reversible.

he is using his own narrow definition and intentionally dismissing *anything* else.

Eric Stevens
Because the narrow meaning expresses *exactly* what he intends. Your preferred broad meaning encompasses many alternatives. Hence this argument.

Sandman
No, the argument is due to Floyd making incorrect claims, and Eric Stevens stepping in to support those incorrect claims.

Eric Stevens
I will make a statement: you don't have the training to know whether we are right or not. You are simply denying the existence of what you don't understand.