Re: Evidence v Conclusions

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