On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:13:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:25:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant
>>>>>>>used
>>>>>>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue,
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>>>>>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and
>>>>>>>irrefutable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to
>>>>>say
>>>>>unless he says otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>>Yes, you do.
>>
>> We can't.
>
>YOU can't

Since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal situation,
WE can not simply assume that it's really what he meant
to say. Not you, not me, not even the Goober. No one.