May 15th, 2004

bundled up, walkabout, snow

cryptic logic

assume a > b > c

X believes b to be insufficient. Y believes this is be a false observation based on comparison with a.

How can Y argue X must believe c be sufficient?


Oh, that's right. sufficiency is subjective, therefore if Y believes to be sufficient, then X should accept this.

Um,

why is it that the "more, more, more. there is never enough" argument is always used by those unwilling to try the first "more" ? "here, make do with less."

stuff it all.
  • Current Mood
    confounded