Reply #102: in fact I very patiently and to the point answered your arguments which you ignored repeatedly

[szatmar666]

First you assert that I think something is "obvious." Next you offer, as evidence, that I called it "pretty well established." (Actually not the same "it," but let's set that aside for the moment!) Now you avow (or perhaps I should say admit) that "well established" shouldn't mean "obvious."

"pretty well established" is meaningless unless you provide the direct quote and the source so we know exactly who established it and where. and no, listing a bunch of papers ad hoc as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269803">Seger did doesn't do it! Need to be more specific and to the point.

I made my point clear as day http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269778">here. then you answered with this and you linked to it in post 93. That's not an argument. that's just more out of context nonsense. Until you provide a direct quote like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=269540&mesg_id=269626">him so I can answer it http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269689">specifically, "pretty well established" just means "obvious" and it's just another one of your logical fallacies that I pointed out many times before, going way over and beyond any reasonable measure of courtesy one would normally grant to accommodate someone's whims.