jtaylor said:"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>>The Belgian Banana wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
>>>>more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing
something
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>>>like swimming across the English Channel?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>
>>Do you have a reference for this?
>
>A reference? No, I don't have a reference.
That is usually the case.
Were you expecting a reference to answer his question? When you ask a
person for directions to Winslow, Colorado, and they give you the
directions, do you then ask them for a reference?
No. because the location of a place is not a matter or opinion.
So you were asking for a reference to my opinion.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Or when you ask your
wife about her day, and she tells you how her day went, do you ask her
for a reference?
Ditto.
However, if you supply us with an opinion, you should not react with insults
if someone askes you support it with facts.
I didn't react with insults. I answered the banana's querstion with No,
and you asked:
"Do you have a reference for this?"
And I replied:
"A reference? No, I don't have a reference. I do have an argument. The
banana asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.
Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes, but he never
specifies anything, so maybe he means something else. But, assuming he
means the fouyr competition strokes, then I think that being proficient
in butterfly would be of no value to a channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation."
There are no insults in there. Your request for a reference was an
insult, though. that was obvious. Still, I responded to your question
properly. I provided an argument to support my claim.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:By now you should understand how to prove a logical argument. But you
don't. He asked if being proficient in ALL strokes would benefit a
channel swimmer. He wrote "Would being fairly proficient at ALL
strokes..." emphasis mine. I answered No. You demanded a proof. To prove
the answer No is correct requires demonstrating that being proficient in
one of the strokes provides no benefit to the channel swimmer in
handling unforeseen situations. Being proficient in butterfly provides
no benefit to the channel swimmer in handling unforeseen situations.
Therefore, the answer No is correct. That's my argument.
And here we have another mistake. You presume that because you say that
being able to swim one of the many strokes is of no value to a
cross-channekl swimmer (disproven elsewhere, but we'll leave that for the
moment), so it must follow that being able to swim _any_ strokes other tha
the one a swimmer starts with is of no value.
No, that wasn't my argument.
Quoted message said:Are you unable to see the logical flaw there?
The logical flaw is your assertion that I made that clim.
