Re: Evidence v Conclusions

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:25:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
wrote:

jillery wrote:
>

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:38:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
wrote:

>

Richmond wrote:
>

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

>
>

nothing below.  Apparently you have a problem with keeping context.

>
There exist reasons to delete text that I'm not addressing. There are reasons to nevertheless leave in a few extra reference lines, even to deleted text, to maintain header integrity because
that affects how well some newsreaders manage threading. >
How's that for context?

Since you asked:

As you should know, I regularly delete text to focus on a point that's
orthogonal to the larger context, so that isn't the problem here.  The
OP comments you deleted are in fact central to the comments to which
you replied, as that reply was a direct response to the OP.  And to
the degree your reply is relevant to the comments to which you
replied, so too are they relevant to the OP comments you deleted and
to the OP topic generally.

Also your alleged concern for header integrity would be better applied
to a concern for context continuity IMO.  But since you thought some
comments were so irrelevant to your comments, and/or so contrary to
header integrity, that you went out of your way to delete them,
consistency suggests you delete any references to those deleted
comments, as said references are by definition also equally irrelevant
and/or contrary.

Given the above, I conclude your context above sounds like an excuse
to delete text for reasons which have nothing to do with either
context continuity or header integrity.

You're welcome.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

I guess you're butt hurt that you and others didn't get to re-read
your OP. To me it was a distraction. I was focusing countering the claim that nobody has ever "seen" an electron. "seen" as
to avoid trite interpretations like 'with the naked eye'. This does not actually match to your original framing. You did
not discuss electrons. And I would disagree with you about your
rather over-simplified distinction between evidence and conclusions
but was not interested in picking that fight, not with you.
It's a philosophy argument with subtle refinements that I personally would hesitate to engage in within this forum.