Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:07:37 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "John Baldwin" <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.org>, "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu>, "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <02c101c189ab$1dc9c560$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <XFMail.011220145526.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John writes: > Actually, it would be better written as so: > > Someone belives that there exists some > specific circumstance such that FreeBSD is a > valid desktop. The opposite of this statement > (as should be evident from basic Math proof > courses) is: For all specific circumstances, > FreeBSD is not a valid desktop. This, then, > is what Jeremiah "believes". You are overlooking many possibilities. If the original statement is "There exists some specific circumstance in which FreeBSD is a suitable desktop," then if Jeremiah disagrees with this, he may disagree in multiple ways, including (but not limited to): 1. There exists some specific circumstance in which FreeBSD is NOT a suitable desktop. 2. There exists some specific circumstance in which something other than FreeBSD (NOT FreeBSD) is a suitable desktop. 3. There exists some specific circumstance in which FreeBSD is an unsuitable desktop. 4. There exists NO specific circumstance in which FreeBSD is NOT a suitable desktop. And so on, through many permutations. Since there are many possibilities, you cannot conclude that one of them is the one Jeremiah intended. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?02c101c189ab$1dc9c560$0a00000a>