On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Shadowfirebird <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx>
And the fact that we now have a thread of, what? 25 posts on this topic does rather imply that the rules are open to interpretation...
(Apologies if the following sounds a bit harsh. I sometimes come off that way when I'm just trying to be precise, and email can amplify the effect. I do think you're mistaken, but I don't think less of you for it :-)
I would like to respectfully but emphatically disagree with this argument. Many billions of words have been written in argument over mathematical concepts, and yet they are not open to interpretation. A large number of people have argued publicly that vaccines cause autism, but their verbiage lends no weight to their utterly unscientific results. Those who wish to 'teach the controversy' about evolution in classrooms are hoping to prey on exactly this kind of thinking.
In this case, I think the rules (or at least, this rule) are quite well specified. That we have 25+ posts on the subject is an indication only that they are sometimes counterintuitive and confusing, not that they contain ambiguities.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.