> making the "if A then B" discussion a distraction at best and disingenuous at worst. My concern was that it sounded to Tom like people were disputing "if A t

> making the "if A then B" discussion a distraction at best and disingenuous at worst. My concern was that it sounded to Tom like people were disputing "if A then B", rather than disputing B by negating A, and that people were therefore talking past each other. > I take it you understand and agree with that part, I wasn't weighing in on that part in the first place. I don't dispute or endorse what you've said, but (if you care) do readily acknowledge that it is of the correct structure to address "the observation" if they in fact match reality. I said at the start that I don't know whether that's the case. > and your quibbles are purely semantic. I was weighing in on the semantics because it seemed to me like a semantic mismatch was leading to misunderstanding and increasing hostility, and I hoped I could help clarify.