3 ms·
The person who wrote the original post replied above saying that my interpretation of his post was correct. What other “proofs” do you need?
by cycrutchfield 3y ago
The person who wrote the original post replied above saying that my interpretation of his post was correct. What other “proofs” do you need?
- acqq 3y agoI'm simply not interested in person's later claims, the post does not contain any conditionals. That is exactly what I argue, let me repeat if it wasn't clear enough: if somebody "sees" them where they aren't it's due to their assumptions existing independently of what is actually written in the post.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago[flagged]