Re: part 21 asserts forth best for small memory systems, would lisp

Guy Macon wrote:
> John Doty wrote:
>> Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>>
>>> The effects you cite are not *necessarily* the result 
>>> of the cause to which you attribute them.
>> Of course they are.
> 
> Evidence, please.

I've given you the evidence. Repeatedly. But I am a scientist. In 
science, if there's only one hypothesis on the table (all the others 
having failed the test of evidence) that's the best explanation possible 
until something better comes along. The burden is on *you* to provide an 
alternate hypothesis: lacking a workable alternate the effects *are* 
necessarily (as close as humanly possible) the result of the cause to 
which the only viable hypothesis attributes them.

Elizabeth's attempt at an alternate hypothesis wasn't really that at 
all: completely compatible with my hypothesis, it was just a possible 
link in the causal chain.

-- 
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor 
necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to 
use logic for that purpose are abusing it.