>You're making a very basic mistake of logic. >Success (in this instance) requires Popularity but Popularity does not imply Success. How is your statement logi

>You're making a very basic mistake of logic. >Success (in this instance) requires Popularity but Popularity does not imply Success. How is your statement logical? Who says success requires popularity? In what universe does that make sense? A heart transplant was successfully completed recently. The man survived with no immune rejections. The heart came from a genetically modified pig spliced with genes to prevent rejection and stop growth after transplantation. First time it occurred. It is a "successful" transplantation and BY DEFINITION since it only happened on one person in the whole of human history... NOT POPULAR. So if this "successful" event happened in the reality we live in... it means that things can be successful and NOT POPULAR at the same time. "Not Logical"... Come on man. >You are making up an alternative definition of success, which is untestable, No I'm using the definition of successful in terms of the English language. Look it up in the dictionary to see if it contains the word "popular." >But you haven't disproved that my idea of success is invalid. You keep attacking popularity. My point isn't too prove anything. All I am saying and I repeat for like the hundredth time that you're statements have no logical basis. That's it. You claim is INVALID. Here's an example that you can probably understand. If you enter a password into a system... I tell you the password is INVALID. I said nothing else. I didn't say no password exists, I didn't say a password does exist. I said NOTHING other than your password (aka claim) is INVALID.