Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,226 Year: 5,483/9,624 Month: 508/323 Week: 5/143 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 31 of 211 (632614)
09-09-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
09-08-2011 1:49 PM


Re: Stage 2: definitions
Definitions are intended for general use and common understanding, so we don't need to redefine a word every time we use it in order to fit a particular situation.
In this instance the situations would not change the meanings of these terms. But the scenarios would of course only invlove one person doing a single thing, or the terms would involve a person attempting to have involvement with another person or persons.
So as you can see, I am not attempting to change meanings, but scenarios in life would naturally involve how and when those definitions would apply. Woudnt you agree?
We are not talking about goals, but about response, willing and able.
You were able to get to the lake, you were willing to get to the lake. Your response was made. Spock left at 9:20 am and did not see it.
Ill ask you the same question I asked BT. Wouldnt, goals, response and communication, be what make Willing and Able possible? IOWs, these would be mechanisms or qualifications that are sub-points, to the greater poins of willing and able, they are not something different, but a intrical part to the accomplishment of those limited realities
At one point someone mentioned ambevalence. Unfortunately, this is a mental exiercise and until it manifests in physical action, it does not apply
Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things.
Agreed
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2011 1:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 11:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 32 of 211 (632615)
09-09-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Butterflytyrant
09-08-2011 9:23 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received.
A third option that Spock did not recognise.
If "no response was recieved" then they were unable to answer the hail, because they made no contact with the enterprise, knowing a response was required
Ill try this again, pay close attention. If we look at it from the second ships point of view, they were Willing and Able, the is no other category. IOWs no other word, correct?
If we look at it from Spocks position the only terms that will apply are willing and able, Unable or unwilling, no other area to consider, nor any other options
Are you starting to see the point, it doesnt matter the position or perspective only willing or able will apply. If you think I am wrong provide me a scenario where there will be another concept besides these terms
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 9:23 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 12:28 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 33 of 211 (632618)
09-09-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Panda
09-08-2011 9:19 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
RAZD writes
In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes:
1.willing & able - reply made
2.not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling"
3.willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable"
4.not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both
Panda writes:
Which 2 outcomes do you not consider possible?
There all possible, but dont involve another term or concept provided by english or reality, that is different than Willing or Able. If you think I am wrong provide any scenario where there would be something different
Lets see if RAZD can add anything to the mix
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Panda, posted 09-08-2011 9:19 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 34 of 211 (632621)
09-09-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
This is incorrect. By shouting the message, you have responded. You did not lose the ability to respond. You lost the ability to communicate. This is the whole point of the disagreement. You were willing and able to respond. You performed the action of response by shouting the message. Just because communication failed, it did not mean that you did not attempt communication with your reponse.
I think you are still missing the point. My concern is not whether they were willling or able to respond, whether they could or didnt.
The question BT is whether you can find another term Besides Wiiling or able that would define thier actions. Thats from thier perspective and tasks
Now look at ti from Spocks point of view, if no contact was recieved by the enterprise, then it does not matter whether the 2nd ship was willing or able, they were not ABLE to contact the ship
Ability in this instance does not mean they made an attempt, it means they failed and were unable to reach them to make communication
This sounds all petty but does and will have application when considering the only possibilites as to the cause of existence
Even Unaware by the second ship will translate into unable by both parties. The enterprise is Unable to cantact a ship they are attempting to contact, because they have not or cannot recieve a transmission set in thier direction
The second ship is unable to recieve the transmission, even if they are unaware, therfore unable to make a response
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
(1)
Message 35 of 211 (632626)
09-09-2011 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot,
I cant understand how you are missing the most important part of the equation over and over again.
Spock said tha craft was either unable or unwilling to respond. The task is responding. The task for the second craft is to respond. How can I make this clearer to you.
how about this -
TASK = RESPOND
Before you start typing a response to this message i want you to think about it for a second.
ask yourself these questions -
Are you willing to respond by yelling your answer?
Are you able to respond by yelling your answer?
The answer to those two questions is yes.
You are willing and able to respond to this post by yelling your reply.
No perform this task. Yell the answer.
....
You have now proven that you are willing and able to respond.
I did not hear the response.
I have not received your response.
This does not change the fact that you have completed the task of responding.
It does not matter if I am expecting a response or if do not undertsand the response. This makes no difference to the fact that you have responded.
You have completed the task of responding.
If "no response was recieved" then they were unable to answer the hail, because they made no contact with the enterprise, knowing a response was required
No, this is wrong. here, once again are the definitions of response and communicate. Please tell me which parts of these definitions you cannot understand -
Here is the definition of response-
response - the act of responding; reply or reaction
here is the definition of communicate -
Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.
Now, look at the definition of response. Please pay close attention to any parts of the definition of response that requires receiving the response. You will notice that there is no requirement for the second party to receive the response for the task of responding to be complete.
Please tell me which part of this you cannot understand.
Please answer this question. It is a yes or no question.
Do you understand that the task of responding can be completed without the second party receiving or understanding the response?\
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:20 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 36 of 211 (632627)
09-09-2011 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 1:19 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot,
The question BT is whether you can find another term Besides Wiiling or able that would define thier actions.
I have no problem with the terms willing and able. I never have. I have continually said that the problem you have is with the definition of respond and communicate. I have mentioned this many times now. New definitions of willing or able are not required. Your understanding of the definition of respond and communicate are required.
Now look at ti from Spocks point of view, if no contact was recieved by the enterprise, then it does not matter whether the 2nd ship was willing or able, they were not ABLE to contact the ship
The whole point I am making is that the 2nd ship may be both willing and able to respond. Saying that the were not able to contact the ship Enterprise means that they were not able to communicate. It does not mean they were not both willing and able to respond.
Ability in this instance does not mean they made an attempt, it means they failed and were unable to reach them to make communication
The response is the attempt. They may have made the attempt. This is their response. They have completed the task of responding. Failing to communicate does not mean that they did not respond. Being unable to reach them means that they failed to communicate. this does not mean that they did not respond. Responding and communicating are two different things.
Even Unaware by the second ship will translate into unable by both parties.
No it does not. How does being unaware make the ship unable to perdorm the task of responding. Lets say the second ship was unaware of the original hail. Does this mean that for some unknown reason, all of their communication devices fail all of a sudden?
I can yell my response to you. I am able to yell my response to you. I am willing to yell my response to you. Do you think that because you cannot hear me yelling that I become unable to yell?
The second ship is unable to recieve the transmission, even if they are unaware, therfore unable to make a response
No, this is wrong again. For exactly the same reason it has been wrong every other time you have said it. The 2nd ship does not lose its ability to respond if it is unaware of the original hail. The ship still has the ability to respond. The 2nd ships communications are in 100% tip top working order and they have the ability to succesfully communicate with any other vessel. The are both willing and able to perform the task of responding. If, for whatever reason, they do not respond, this does not mean that they lose their ability to respond.
Responding can be a 1 way transaction. The task of responding does not need to be succesfully received or understood in order to be completed.
I can jump, if I choose not to jump, I do not lose the ability to jump.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 37 of 211 (632650)
09-09-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:54 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot writes:
There[sic] all possible
Which is contradicted by:
Dawn Bertot writes:
Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites
You specifically said "Actually only two" out of a list of four.
Which of the list of four are not included in your "Actually only two"?

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:38 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 38 of 211 (632652)
09-09-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Butterflytyrant
09-09-2011 2:36 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Maybe it would help if you asked Dawn to supply his own definition of 'respond'?
From that you may be able to see why he insists on there being two parties to a response.
Although RADZ provided a definition of 'able', 'willing' and 'respond' in Message 26 , Dawn only acknowledged the definition of 'able' (and implied an acceptance of the definition of 'willing'.)
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:36 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 12:40 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 211 (632662)
09-09-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:00 AM


Stage 3: the questions of alternatives
Hi again Dawn Bertot, thanks.
I am fine with these definitions, all I need is another word that does not include Willing or Able or a combination of the two,or the opposites obviously. Is there another word
Excellent, then everyone on this thread can always refer back to the definitions of "able", "willing", and "response" as given in Message 26.
Now we can move on to Stage 3: the question of alternatives. In Message 1 I said:
quote:
The question then comes down to what "willing" and "able" mean, whether there is a null (0) position, and whether there exists another dimension category.
This is really two questions:
  1. Is there a zero (null) position?
    1. that is not "able" and not "not[able]"?
    2. that is not "willing" and not "not[willing]"?
    3. that is not "respond" and not "not[respond]"?
    and
  2. Is there another "dimension" (word) to consider, an additional possibility to explain the lack of response being received and understood by the Enterprise?
Let's deal with the first question first:
I'll admit that I do not see much room for a zero (null) position for "able" and "respond" -- it either is or it isn't (the zero (null) position is effectively included in the isn't category), as these are fairly technical questions with no element of subjectiveness.
However I do see an opening in "willing" because it is subjective. As I said in Message 1:
quote:
When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.


willing
ambivalent
not[willing]
able
willing & able
reply made

ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
willing but not[able]
reply not made
ambivalent but not[able]
reply not made
not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

Another word that could be used in place of ambivalent is apathetic, but in either case we have a situation where they just don't care either way, and may decide on the whim of the moment or some external factor whether or not to respond.
In this case, we posit a group of people that, for reasons unknown, depend on the toss of a coin to make decisions when they don't care either way. "Head" you respond and "Tails" you don't: the coin toss came up "Tails" ... next time it could be "heads".
They are [able] to respond and they are [willing] to respond according to the coin toss. It is the coin toss that governs whether the response is made, rather than their [able]/[willing]ness.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : =

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 211 (632682)
09-09-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:19 AM


Re: Stage 2: definitions
Hello again Dawn Bertot.
In this instance the situations would not change the meanings of these terms. But the scenarios would of course only invlove one person doing a single thing, or the terms would involve a person attempting to have involvement with another person or persons.
So as you can see, I am not attempting to change meanings, but scenarios in life would naturally involve how and when those definitions would apply. Woudnt you agree?
The purpose of the definitions is that they do not explicitly or implicitly involve personal connotations, and we agree on those definitions to prevent misunderstanding or equivocation (changing definitions within the argument).
For instance, a sunflower responds to sunlight by turning towards the sun: it is [able] to respond, but it is difficult to see whether or not [willing]ness is involved, as it is more of a programed response, sun out = turn to sun, sun not out = don't turn to sun, and not a subjective decision.
Ill ask you the same question I asked BT. Wouldnt, goals, response and communication, be what make Willing and Able possible? IOWs, these would be mechanisms or qualifications that are sub-points, to the greater poins of willing and able, they are not something different, but a intrical part to the accomplishment of those limited realities
Not necessarily, this is why we define the terms, so that we can refer to them and then test the situation to see if it meets the requirements for [able], [willing] and [response]. Neither [able], [willing] nor [respond] list goals in their definitions. Neither [able], [willing] nor [respond] list communication in their definitions.
It may be that communication is the goal of the Enterprise, as would be implied by the situation, but we cannot determine what the goals of the target are, just whether they respond or not, and we can only speculate on the reasons why a response is not detected.
Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things.
Agreed
So then all we need to do is see if the situations being considered meet the definitions of [able], [willing] and [respond], as listed on Message 26
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 211 (632684)
09-09-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:39 AM


Stage 3: the question of alternatives
Hi again Dawn Bertot
If "no response was recieved" then they were unable to answer the hail, because they made no contact with the enterprise, knowing a response was required
But the definition of [respond] does not include whether or not the response is received, just what constitutes a response.
A sunflower responds to sunlight by turning towards the sun, and the sun does need to know or receive this information for this to be a response.
Ill try this again, pay close attention. If we look at it from the second ships point of view, they were Willing and Able, the is no other category. IOWs no other word, correct?
Indeed, let's consider the scenario where the second ship did respond from their viewpoint: they were [willing], they were [able], they did [respond] and now await a response from the Enterprise: if the Enterprise does not respond to their message, does that mean that the Enterprise is not[willing] or not[able] to respond? Or is something else involved?
If we look at it from Spocks position the only terms that will apply are willing and able, Unable or unwilling, no other area to consider, nor any other options
Are you starting to see the point, it doesnt matter the position or perspective only willing or able will apply. If you think I am wrong provide me a scenario where there will be another concept besides these terms
That is the question we are now exploring: are there other options? Claiming there are no other options does not make it so, this needs to be demonstrated. That is why we are now exploring these other alternatives.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : sunflower

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 211 (632685)
09-09-2011 12:30 PM


Use of Like and Dislike on this thread Notice
As the initiator of this thread, I am using the "like" and "dislike" buttons to denote whether I feel the posts relate to the topic in a respectful manner.
Thank you for your participation in moving the discussion forward.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : splng

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 211 (632687)
09-09-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Panda
09-09-2011 8:52 AM


Stage 2: definitions
Hi Panda,
Although RADZ provided a definition of 'able', 'willing' and 'respond' in Message 26 , Dawn only acknowledged the definition of 'able' (and implied an acceptance of the definition of 'willing'.)
The response was a little ambiguous, but I took it to include all the word defintions:
Message 30: I am fine with these definitions, all I need is another word that does not include Willing or Able or a combination of the two,or the opposites obviously. Is there another word
Message 31:
Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things.
Agreed
And that this confirms it.
Enjoy.
ps -- it's RAZD.
Edited by RAZD, : ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:52 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 44 of 211 (632841)
09-10-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Butterflytyrant
09-09-2011 2:20 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
I cant understand how you are missing the most important part of the equation over and over again.
Because you are so intent on making a point, your missing a simple one
Spock said tha craft was either unable or unwilling to respond. The task is responding. The task for the second craft is to respond. How can I make this clearer to you.
how about this -
TASK = RESPOND
Before you start typing a response to this message i want you to think about it for a second.
ask yourself these questions -
Are you willing to respond by yelling your answer?
Are you able to respond by yelling your answer?
The answer to those two questions is yes.
You are willing and able to respond to this post by yelling your reply.
No perform this task. Yell the answer.
....
You have now proven that you are willing and able to respond.
No Butterfly, the tasks is not responding, the task is FOR YOU to find another word that is different than from willing or able, whether its me asking you to do it or its a scenario in a movie
Pay close attention to this one more time
IF, they were willing and able to respond (did respond) and made no contact with the ship, they were still willing and able. But now pay even closer attention. Give me another word that is different than willing or able or another concept that is not described by thier actions.
Response is what made them willing and able, its a part of and combination of williing and able, its not something different
Mr spocks wishes are not the point. What they did, is not the point. Whether they responded is not the point. Whether they were willing and able is not the point. Whether they were unwilling and unable, is not the point. Whether they were Willing but unable, is not the point, Whether they were able but not willing is not the point
Whether they were successful or unsucessful is not the point
The point is that there is no other words to decribe thier actions besides willing and able
Any actions by anyone anywhere for any reason will involve ONLY Willing and Able.
Now do you see what I am saying? Are you smelling the coffee yet?
Mr Spock, the writer, the script, whoever, whatever accurately, described a logical proposition, the likes of which is irrefutable and irresisitible in its conclusion
There are no other categories or options. If there is, provide the word
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:20 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 10:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 61 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 3:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(3)
Message 45 of 211 (632844)
09-10-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Panda
09-09-2011 8:49 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
You specifically said "Actually only two" out of a list of four.
Which of the list of four are not included in your "Actually only two"?
You kidding right, no one is really that simplistic. Ill let you use that massive brain power of yours to figure this one out
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:49 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 6:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024