ipse dixit wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news
> > You've never understood it. You never will.
> >
> "This BULLSHIT about "the consequent isn't a
> necessary condition for the antecedent to exist"
> is just nonsense; there is no such requirement,
> anywhere at any time."
> Jonathan Ball 21-02-04
>
> You need to study, Jon.
>
> 1.. If John is a citizen of Iowa, then John is a citizen of the USA.
> 2.. John is a citizen of Iowa.
> 3.. John is a citizen of the USA.
>
> This sound syllogism illustrates two basic points:
> (1) the antecedent must be a sufficient condition for the
> consequent to be true (i.e., the antecedent cannot be true
> without the consequent being true) and
> (2) the consequent must be a necessary condition for the
> antecedent to be true (i.e., the consequent must be true
> in order for the antecedent to be true).
> http://www.letusreason.com/archives/...ogic011598.htm
>
> You clearly don't understand the subject as well
> as you think, dummy. What a great start to the
> day.

Ohhhh I wish I were in Dixi - away away...