Re: [none]

>SO simplicity = Haughtiness and condescension?  Sorry I'm not a
>politician.

        Perhaps you should work harder at it, since I'm definitely not casting my
vote for you to be on the SJ council.


>Nevertheless, you are incorrect.  His statement was wrong
>therefor when I said so I was right.  See frogs for an example.

        I am not incorrect.  You're doing nothing more than proving your ignorance
and your inability to be mature and own up to the fact that you're wrong.
And you're making an ass of yourself to boot.

        The original statement was "Amphibious animals can breathe underwater."

        Frogs can, indeed, breathe underwater.

        Nowhere in anything that I have written have I said that frogs (or
anything else) "breathes water."  Nothing breathes water.  But frogs can
breathe oxygen through their skin while underwater.

        At this point, really, your best bet is to say "Drat.  I've reviewed all
the messages, and it turns out that I completely misread one of the
original messages in this thread, and my own messages subsequent to that
message have been based on this erroneous misreading.  Clearly, I made a
mistake.  Frogs can indeed breathe underwater, as several others have
pointed out in this thread.  My apologies for the error, and my apologies
for being a git about it."

        Doing this would give you credibility, something you certainly don't have
now.


>I'll accept this as the most accurate of all statements made so far on
>the subject.

        All the statements I've made thus far on the subject are provably true.
It is, therefore, completely inconsequential to me whether you accept them
or not.

        Yours,
        Afterburner