I doubt Comcast has any more legal obligation to deliver "expected" service than Geico has to deliver "an English muffin with butter and jam"
Wrong, sorry. Geico was extremly careful to include a disclaimer in the add. Specifically the gecko stating "that's a complete dramatization of course, but you get my point" (from memory). Comcast has not disclaimed unusual limitations to what they claim is Internet access. Geico is not AS obligated as Comcast. (Legally speaking, we have yet to see just how obligated Comcast is. By all standards of decency they are being quite rude.)
Your joke needs a better delivery. I don't agree, but I'll set that aside for the moment. It is almost painful to read because you have the wrong number of syllables in your phrasing. It would have been better if you had more closely imitated the original. Observe:
This is the war that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue fighting it forever just because--
See, much better. Further embellishments could be made, but only if they do not break the phrasing that goes with the tune.
Wrong! Not too far from a defendable position, but clearly wrong. Terrorism isn't an emotion. Terror is. Terrorism is a set of techniques to cause terror in a group of people, sometimes as large as a nation.
You could argue that "the war on terror" is a war on a technique. This would be much like saying "war against guerrilla warfare". I would be less literal about it and say it is a war against certain groups who want to kill otherwise innocent people (most publicized form of terrorism).
Further more, if a company came under scrutiny, retailers everywhere would immediately stop buying and selling the disputed equipment. Even without a court injunction, that product would cease to make money.
This could be another case where the mere threat of an accusation could spell doom to a business.
(ps, I don't think stores have any expectation to be in the middle of an ip disagreement. I only argue that it would be unjust if they were.)
In John chapter 1, Jesus is baptized and begins his ministry. In John chapter 2, Jesus attends a wedding where there is no wine, and he turns water into wine (yes literally). In John chapter 13, Beginning of the last supper. This would roughly relate to Matthew chapter 26 where the bread and wine are introduced as symbols of his body and blood. In John chapter 19 he is crucified.
I realize that that is what you have been taught. Before I get into this, I am NOT going to tell you that you're wrong in your belief, only that I strongly disagree with your interpretation.
Jesus did not tell the woman at the well that only dead people can worship God. That wouldn't make sense. Both you and I have spirits, as well as physical bodies. We also can act carnal, or spiritual. God is spirit in the same manner that he asks of his worshipers. This does not preclude God having a physical body.
Your quote from Isaiah does not mean that God must live outside of space-time. It is a neat theory, and you could derive Isaiah's words from it. Unfortunately there are limitless other possible interpretations of that passage. It could mean the center of the Earth, Sun, distant galaxy, etc. It could also mean the Temple in Jerusalem literally, or figuratively.
Before you reply to me, take a second and consider. I have no desire to "Bible bash" with you. I don't mind clearing up confusion. I don't mind sharing ideas. I don't mind discussing the strength or validity of theological arguments, but I have no interest in participating in a flame-fest.
Thanks for the honest post. I have some honest questions.
"...but it is mixed in with much that is clearly symbolic."
How is it decided which parts are symbolic and which are not? Is it put to a vote?
No, it isn't put to a vote. Some things are obvious, others aren't. We take historical stories from the scriptures literally. Books of prophecy, and visions are always at least partially symbolic.
From my experience taking poetry classes in the past it is clear the some people are better at understanding symbolism than others.
Also related to this, symbolism means exactly what the original author (prophet or God) meant (double meanings included). Many people just don't get this.
Is it possible to get a copy of the bible with the symbolic parts marked somehow (italics perhaps)?
It might be nice sometimes. Unfortunately God hasn't sent a prophet to do that yet! (you don't want one done by the hand of man only, because that will only be one man's interpretation.)
Saying that God is an immortal person with both body and spirit is a very real claim about the state of the universe that is either true or not true. As such it would seem to be squarely in the realm of the "need to know" AND "useful to know" categories.
And it is. I'm sorry if I was unclear in my post. I tried to separate it into two distinct and separate paragraphs. The exact location that God currently resides at is not something we strictly need to know right now. The nature of God is something that he desires us to know, because it tells us about ourselves.
It is a proposition that is, in principle at least, testable. So we should not rely on "personal revelation" for this because evidence of that sort has a long and sorted history of being unreliable at best.
I'm sorry that you feel that way about revelation. It is very different when you experience it first hand. Knowledge of the world around us is built on a series of experiences. The same goes with personal revelation. Experiences in feeling the spirit over time, and acting on it, lead to greater understanding and blessings. This helps build faith and prepares us for more spiritual promptings. One cannot simply assume that others claiming to receive revelation actually do, either. History is littered with contradictory claims. As for testability, he could easily prove his existence and power. He doesn't as that would defeat the purpose of this world in it's current state. An important part of our agency is the ability to disbelieve in his existence (without getting too deep into it theologically).
I'm posting this tired. I'm hoping that I'm not making a stupid mistake somewhere.
That God is an immortal person with both body and spirit is true. Further, he is the perfect man in every sense. He is a separate being than his son, Jesus Christ (physically resurrected; also perfected and glorified).
That he lives on another planet is an unanswered question that sometimes arouses a bit of a debate. The scriptures are not crystal clear on the topic, and church leaders have avoided answering it directly, it to my knowledge. There are passages in the writings of Abraham that many interpret as this, but it is mixed in with much that is clearly symbolic. Such things lie outside the "need to know", and even the "useful to know" categories. For those who would benefit from this, that is what personal revelation is for.
+1 Funny doesn't add karma, while +1 Insightful does. This means that someone could be at +5 Funny, and have lost karma because of it. A lot of moderators refuse to use the funny mod because of this.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Sorry, Posted a premature copy.
Full reply is as follows:
I tire of this. I expect this will be my last post in this thread.
Quote:
My objection referred to "You are also using an example of information transport (audio) and trying to apply it to physical object transport."
Saying my analogy is invalid because "that's information, this is physical objects", which the above quote does, it itself an invalid objection, and that was what I was referring to.
No, It's not an invalid objection. Information and physical objects share some common behavior. They are NOT interchangeable in an argument because they do not have exactly corresponding sets of behavior.
He did list other reasons, but the quoted claim is an invalid response, and is unrelated to the rest of his post.
Now: what did your lastest philosophical example have to do with anything?
**sigh** I'll try again. In order to get this, you will need to go back and reread my post.
A vanishingly small number of situations require a specific material object
to cross the globe in a couple hours.
The Internet relieves any information hauling needs,
and the rise of manufacturing and general ubiquity of export goods has meant
that there's probably an identical copy of that object that can be had more locally.
So most remaining situations would be fully burdened
(not amortized like all 2,000 packages in a neighborhood UPS truck).
Now it takes a LOT of energy to get even the smallest object into orbit,...
Compared to:
A vanishingly small number of situations require a specific audio message
to cross the globe in a couple tenths of a second.
The postal system relieves any written information hauling needs,
and the rise of messenger boys has meant
that it's easy to send messages that need to be delivered more locally.
So most remaining situations would be fully burdened
(not amortized like all 2,000 letters in a mail truck).
Now it takes a LOT of energy to get even the smallest audio message across the cables
This is the logical fallacy that I was attacking.
You think that you can argue that "This statement has the same structure, and is false.
Therefore, the first statement is false too".
That is utterly ridiculous.
Any statement can be argued as false and mocked in exactly the same way.
The closer the substituted words are in meaning,
the more insidious the fallacy
I'll give AvitarX his due: "I know your trying to prove a point with a bad analogy, but it is really bad."
I tire of this. I expect this will be my last post in this thread.
Quote:
My objection referred to "You are also using an example of information transport (audio) and trying to apply it to physical object transport."
Saying my analogy is invalid because "that's information, this is physical objects", which the above quote does, it itself an invalid objection, and that was what I was referring to.
He did list other reasons, but the quoted claim is an invalid response, and is unrelated to the rest of his post.
Now: what did your lastest philosophical example have to do with anything?
**sigh** I'll try again. In order to get this, you will need to go back and reread my post.
A vanishingly small number of situations require a specific material object
to cross the globe in a couple hours.
The Internet relieves any information hauling needs,
and the rise of manufacturing and general ubiquity of export goods has meant
that there's probably an identical copy of that object that can be had more locally.
So most remaining situations would be fully burdened
(not amortized like all 2,000 packages in a neighborhood UPS truck).
Now it takes a LOT of energy to get even the smallest object into orbit,...
Compared to:
A vanishingly small number of situations require a specific audio message
to cross the globe in a couple tenths of a second.
The postal system relieves any written information hauling needs,
and the rise of messenger boys has meant
that it's easy to send messages that need to be delivered more locally.
So most remaining situations would be fully burdened
(not amortized like all 2,000 letters in a mail truck).
Now it takes a LOT of energy to get even the smallest audio message across the cables
This is the logical fallicy that I was attacking. You think that you can argue that "This statement has the same structure, and is false. Therefore, the first statement is false too". That is uterly rediculous. Any statement can be argued as false and mocked in exactly the same way. The closer the substituted words are in meaning, the more insidious the fallicy
I'll give AvitarX his due: "I know your trying to prove a point with a bad analogy, but it is really bad."
"but do you really want those million-dollar business contracts and project bids on it?"
To think, people actually do this across any email... **shudder**
Seriously, all potentially sensitive business should be conducted in person (perhaps by a representative). Anybody not smart enough to realize this should not be running a "million-dollar business".
It was not the exact same argument. You can't leave the syntactic structure of an argument in place, and change the words to show that the structure is fallacious. The words that you changed were part of the structure, and he was telling you why they were a significantly different structural element.
Classic philosophical example (minor simplification):
All emeralds found so far are green.
We expect all emerald we find in the future to be green.
This gives us a basic structure, and a true statement.
Definition:
Grue -- Green and discovered before 2010, or Blue and discovered after 2010.
That leads us to the statement:
All emeralds found so far are grue.
We expect all emerald we find in the future to be grue.
This is clearly a fallacious statement. Changing what seemed to be a non-structural element of the argument did indeed change the entire argument. I know you don't see it, but this is exactly what you did in your post.
I contend that it would be a fallacy to ignore the similarities between physical and information transportation. It is also a fallacy to ignore the differences.
You meant "were". "we're" is a concatenation of "we" and "are". The apostrophe stands in for the missing letters. It took me a minute to figure out what you were saying.
The problem with humans isn't political greed, but just GREED.
True. At least the most fundamental problem. I believe that world peace may be possible if the overall greed level were to be lower, and all truly influential people were not greedy. This is why I focused on political greed specifically. I see eliminating it as a minimum for the utopia that was proposed.
All self inflicted problems, going back to the allegorical apple in Eden, are a result of giving in to greed, taking more than one needs or deserves.
Just to be clear allegorically, we still live in Eden and are still picking those apples, and screwing ourselves every time. Eve is not a female human, but a psychological part of all humans, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.
**Sigh** We are just going to have to disagree on this one. Adam and Eve were literal people. Now I will concede a similarity in opinion. Why did God have Moses record that history in Genesis? What value are any Bible _stories_ worth anyway? We can treat the story as an allegory, so long as we don't get lost in irrelevant interpretations. By understanding what has gone on before, we can understand what is going on today.
And whoever said it was an apple? Let's not give the pseudo-scientific-Christ-hating crowd any more rope to try to hang us with.
My point was not regarding terrorism and terrorists. That is much too narrow a discussion for the point I was trying to make.
"DEAD...DEAD..." -- Irrelevant. There will be more like them. As I said: "people such as".
"trained and ordered by CIA" -- Good point, already covered that: "the people who listen to them"
"dosn't support international terrorism" -- The government he leads sure does. Whether he has any direct control over that or not is another issue. Unless he is silently supporting peace, and working hard behind the scenes in Iran, then I don't see him as not supporting terrorism to some degree. I think he personally supports political terrorism.
"dosn't support international terrorism" -- Perhaps, and perhaps not. He DOES support local repressive terrorism, er, I mean government... Again, note that this is NOT about terrorism, strictly speaking. He is an example of a world leader who is preventing peace and freedom (but mostly freedom).
"Fidel Castro..." -- Where to start? Let's start with the assassination attempts. Being assassinated does NOT make someone a "good guy". Neither does an attempt. Don't get me wrong, it usually doesn't speak well for the assassin either (and when it doesn't, it strengthens my point). He did sponsor international terrorism, or have you forgotten the cuban missile crisis? Yes, again I'm using a very loose definition of terrorism. And look where his dictatorship has lead his people in the long run. They're jumping on makeshift rafts and praying to wash up in Florida. People _like_ him are a hindrance to peace and freedom.
"#1 supporter for a international terrorism" -- Arguable. I don't think he is, but it is possible. If we wanted to win the current "conflict" using terrorism, our methods would be very different. They would be much more effective in the short term, but probably much less effective in the long run. Mostly, I think this idea is just a smear campaign promoted by liberals who can't stand him. It doesn't make him right, it only makes them trolls. ("liberals" as used here does not only mean politicians)
"elected by non-democratic way, re-elected" -- I don't know if you are referring to the electoral college, and the farce it has become, or vote fraud. I've heard good arguments for both. If you are referring to vote fraud, I don't think those responsible bothered to tell him personally about it. Vote fraud really scares me, and I'm developing the opinion that it's becoming rampant by both parties (in key precincts). While electronic voting machines _can_ be a good thing, current implementations lend themselves to be abusable.
You idiot. You don't realize that your argument emphasizes mine. Assuming this is all true (and much of it is), then you can add the American politicians to the list (as I already did).
I refuse to single Cheney out in a conversation like this, as both parties are crammed with corrupt power mongers. Single him out in a conversation about him specifically, if you must.
Oh, and the "loony religious right" in Iran is nothing like the "loony religious right" in America. Be very careful to refer to the "{loony, religious} right" and not the "loony {religious right}". The first may be offensive, the latter is simply trolling.
The point is that human beings don't have to live that way. We can decide to be reasonable and rational and agree to set rules on the competitions short of life and death battles to the death. We don't have to breed like rabbits, live like pigs, and ultimately die like dogs. We are human beings, and we can make choices and live by them.
You're a naive philosophical ostrich. That level of civilization is not yet possible. It will not ever be possible as long as we have people such as:
Adolf hitler
Joseph Stalin
Osama Bin Laden
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (On Monday: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals")
Kim Jong-il
Fidel Castro
... etc...
arguably, most current politicians (to a lesser degree)
and of course, the people who listen to them
Please stop spouting off garbage until we can resolve the real problem (political greed).
If you think about it, propulsion based re-entry sufers from a dilema. If they decelerate just enough to bring them below LEO, they hit the atmosphere almost sideways at tremendous speeds and friction force. If they start higher, but decelerate too much, then they free fall towards the earth. In this case, there is no "terminal velocity" to keep them alive. They will keep acclerating until they hit the atmosphere hard.
A good propulsion based re-entry system relies on a combination of the two, and good heat shielding.
But, what if the tether system could be further advanced? If we could use the tether as a means to decelerate the target while simutaniously keeping it from premature freefall, then we might have something.
For example: Men have done skydiving from 30km. This is still a bit of a long shot from your 200km, but you get the idea. Add a little heat shielding, and don't put a person aboard, and you could put this concept to use (further testing of course).
I am a big fan of the sky-hook method, should it ever become feasible.
I don't know what you thought my point was, but saying that the situation isn't analagous "because we're talking about X, not Y" isn't in general a valid response.
Slashdot Mirror
(Legally speaking, we have yet to see just how obligated Comcast is. By all standards of decency they are being quite rude.)
Your joke needs a better delivery. I don't agree, but I'll set that aside for the moment. It is almost painful to read because you have the wrong number of syllables in your phrasing. It would have been better if you had more closely imitated the original. Observe:
This is the war that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue fighting it forever just because--
See, much better. Further embellishments could be made, but only if they do not break the phrasing that goes with the tune.
Wrong! Not too far from a defendable position, but clearly wrong. Terrorism isn't an emotion. Terror is. Terrorism is a set of techniques to cause terror in a group of people, sometimes as large as a nation.
You could argue that "the war on terror" is a war on a technique. This would be much like saying "war against guerrilla warfare". I would be less literal about it and say it is a war against certain groups who want to kill otherwise innocent people (most publicized form of terrorism).
This would stifle the sale of new products.
Further more, if a company came under scrutiny, retailers everywhere would immediately stop buying and selling the disputed equipment. Even without a court injunction, that product would cease to make money.
This could be another case where the mere threat of an accusation could spell doom to a business.
(ps, I don't think stores have any expectation to be in the middle of an ip disagreement. I only argue that it would be unjust if they were.)
No, as I haven't ever watched South Park.
In John chapter 1, Jesus is baptized and begins his ministry.
In John chapter 2, Jesus attends a wedding where there is no wine, and he turns water into wine (yes literally).
In John chapter 13, Beginning of the last supper. This would roughly relate to Matthew chapter 26 where the bread and wine are introduced as symbols of his body and blood.
In John chapter 19 he is crucified.
I realize that that is what you have been taught. Before I get into this, I am NOT going to tell you that you're wrong in your belief, only that I strongly disagree with your interpretation.
Jesus did not tell the woman at the well that only dead people can worship God. That wouldn't make sense. Both you and I have spirits, as well as physical bodies. We also can act carnal, or spiritual. God is spirit in the same manner that he asks of his worshipers. This does not preclude God having a physical body.
Your quote from Isaiah does not mean that God must live outside of space-time. It is a neat theory, and you could derive Isaiah's words from it. Unfortunately there are limitless other possible interpretations of that passage. It could mean the center of the Earth, Sun, distant galaxy, etc. It could also mean the Temple in Jerusalem literally, or figuratively.
Before you reply to me, take a second and consider. I have no desire to "Bible bash" with you. I don't mind clearing up confusion. I don't mind sharing ideas. I don't mind discussing the strength or validity of theological arguments, but I have no interest in participating in a flame-fest.
I'm posting this tired. I'm hoping that I'm not making a stupid mistake somewhere.
That God is an immortal person with both body and spirit is true. Further, he is the perfect man in every sense.
He is a separate being than his son, Jesus Christ (physically resurrected; also perfected and glorified).
That he lives on another planet is an unanswered question that sometimes arouses a bit of a debate. The scriptures are not crystal clear on the topic, and church leaders have avoided answering it directly, it to my knowledge. There are passages in the writings of Abraham that many interpret as this, but it is mixed in with much that is clearly symbolic. Such things lie outside the "need to know", and even the "useful to know" categories. For those who would benefit from this, that is what personal revelation is for.
Not the last supper.
The transformation of water to wine was at a wedding at the beginning of his ministry.
That's just heartless.
If I tell a joke and get modded:
+4 funny
-2 offtopic (because the mods didn't get the joke)
Then I wind up at +3 funny, and loose 2 points of karma. Yes, this is broken.
Actually caring about others does not make someone an idiot.
Joking aside, it's a "karma" thing.
+1 Funny doesn't add karma, while +1 Insightful does. This means that someone could be at +5 Funny, and have lost karma because of it. A lot of moderators refuse to use the funny mod because of this.
It'll be something new. I vaguely remember Knight Rider 2000. Kit wound up in something red.
Unless, of course, they pretend that Kit is being built for the first time. It will be something new in that case too.
Sorry, scratch that last line.
Quote: No, It's not an invalid objection. Information and physical objects share some common behavior. They are NOT interchangeable in an argument because they do not have exactly corresponding sets of behavior. **sigh** I'll try again. In order to get this, you will need to go back and reread my post. Compared to: This is the logical fallacy that I was attacking. You think that you can argue that "This statement has the same structure, and is false. Therefore, the first statement is false too". That is utterly ridiculous. Any statement can be argued as false and mocked in exactly the same way. The closer the substituted words are in meaning, the more insidious the fallacy
I'll give AvitarX his due: "I know your trying to prove a point with a bad analogy, but it is really bad."
Quote: **sigh** I'll try again. In order to get this, you will need to go back and reread my post. Compared to: This is the logical fallicy that I was attacking. You think that you can argue that "This statement has the same structure, and is false. Therefore, the first statement is false too". That is uterly rediculous. Any statement can be argued as false and mocked in exactly the same way. The closer the substituted words are in meaning, the more insidious the fallicy
I'll give AvitarX his due: "I know your trying to prove a point with a bad analogy, but it is really bad."
"but do you really want those million-dollar business contracts and project bids on it?"
To think, people actually do this across any email... **shudder**
Seriously, all potentially sensitive business should be conducted in person (perhaps by a representative). Anybody not smart enough to realize this should not be running a "million-dollar business".
(Yes, I _realize_ that it happens.)
Classic philosophical example (minor simplification): This gives us a basic structure, and a true statement. That leads us to the statement: This is clearly a fallacious statement. Changing what seemed to be a non-structural element of the argument did indeed change the entire argument. I know you don't see it, but this is exactly what you did in your post.
I contend that it would be a fallacy to ignore the similarities between physical and information transportation. It is also a fallacy to ignore the differences.
And whoever said it was an apple? Let's not give the pseudo-scientific-Christ-hating crowd any more rope to try to hang us with.
My point was not regarding terrorism and terrorists. That is much too narrow a discussion for the point I was trying to make.
"DEAD...DEAD..." -- Irrelevant. There will be more like them. As I said: "people such as".
"trained and ordered by CIA" -- Good point, already covered that: "the people who listen to them"
"dosn't support international terrorism" -- The government he leads sure does. Whether he has any direct control over that or not is another issue. Unless he is silently supporting peace, and working hard behind the scenes in Iran, then I don't see him as not supporting terrorism to some degree. I think he personally supports political terrorism.
"dosn't support international terrorism" -- Perhaps, and perhaps not. He DOES support local repressive terrorism, er, I mean government... Again, note that this is NOT about terrorism, strictly speaking. He is an example of a world leader who is preventing peace and freedom (but mostly freedom).
"Fidel Castro..." -- Where to start? Let's start with the assassination attempts. Being assassinated does NOT make someone a "good guy". Neither does an attempt. Don't get me wrong, it usually doesn't speak well for the assassin either (and when it doesn't, it strengthens my point). He did sponsor international terrorism, or have you forgotten the cuban missile crisis? Yes, again I'm using a very loose definition of terrorism. And look where his dictatorship has lead his people in the long run. They're jumping on makeshift rafts and praying to wash up in Florida. People _like_ him are a hindrance to peace and freedom.
"#1 supporter for a international terrorism" -- Arguable. I don't think he is, but it is possible. If we wanted to win the current "conflict" using terrorism, our methods would be very different. They would be much more effective in the short term, but probably much less effective in the long run. Mostly, I think this idea is just a smear campaign promoted by liberals who can't stand him. It doesn't make him right, it only makes them trolls. ("liberals" as used here does not only mean politicians)
"elected by non-democratic way, re-elected" -- I don't know if you are referring to the electoral college, and the farce it has become, or vote fraud. I've heard good arguments for both. If you are referring to vote fraud, I don't think those responsible bothered to tell him personally about it. Vote fraud really scares me, and I'm developing the opinion that it's becoming rampant by both parties (in key precincts). While electronic voting machines _can_ be a good thing, current implementations lend themselves to be abusable.
You idiot. You don't realize that your argument emphasizes mine. Assuming this is all true (and much of it is), then you can add the American politicians to the list (as I already did).
I refuse to single Cheney out in a conversation like this, as both parties are crammed with corrupt power mongers. Single him out in a conversation about him specifically, if you must.
Oh, and the "loony religious right" in Iran is nothing like the "loony religious right" in America. Be very careful to refer to the "{loony, religious} right" and not the "loony {religious right}". The first may be offensive, the latter is simply trolling.
You're a naive philosophical ostrich. That level of civilization is not yet possible. It will not ever be possible as long as we have people such as:
- and of course, the people who listen to them
Please stop spouting off garbage until we can resolve the real problem (political greed).The "brunt of ... re-entry" is relative.
(No, I am not a physisist)
If you think about it, propulsion based re-entry sufers from a dilema. If they decelerate just enough to bring them below LEO, they hit the atmosphere almost sideways at tremendous speeds and friction force. If they start higher, but decelerate too much, then they free fall towards the earth. In this case, there is no "terminal velocity" to keep them alive. They will keep acclerating until they hit the atmosphere hard.
A good propulsion based re-entry system relies on a combination of the two, and good heat shielding.
But, what if the tether system could be further advanced? If we could use the tether as a means to decelerate the target while simutaniously keeping it from premature freefall, then we might have something.
For example: Men have done skydiving from 30km. This is still a bit of a long shot from your 200km, but you get the idea. Add a little heat shielding, and don't put a person aboard, and you could put this concept to use (further testing of course).
I am a big fan of the sky-hook method, should it ever become feasible.
(Queue technical objections in 3...2...1...)
Oh, but it IS in general a valid response. It's typically called "comparing apples and oranges".
And I'll agree, you were not "comparing apples and apples".
Now that's hacking!