On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 11:22 -0700, Craig White wrote: > I think this is the difference in our thinking. > > When I don't have knowledge of something, I actually cite the best > source I have and relate that I haven't seen any information that > disputes it. When faced with something you don't know anything about, you quote from someone else and just depend on faith that they're correct. > Here you have stated an argument without any evidence to substantiate > your beliefs. I quote from knowledge, what I already know about, through education and experience. As a simple example, if I answer a question using Ohms law I don't also prove Ohms law at the same time. Though, if the other person then asks for more information, I'll give it if it's not too painful to do. You might have tried a less antagonistic way of asking how I provided that information in the first place. On the basis of your current argument, you need to be backing up every thing you advise on this list with supportive evidence. NB: Saying that some guy from some company told you something doesn't count. > Thanks for your theories...I would probably believe them if I hadn't > caught you talking about things your didn't know in the past. If you're going to cast such accusations, you better back that up with references. You've already stated that you didn't know about what I discussed (in depth), then argued against me. That doesn't sound like you're discussing this situation on good footing. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
