From: esa.peuha@helsinki.fi 
  
 stanley@a.shell.peak.org (John Stanley) writes: 
  
 > In article <86pk6vbvfrr.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>, 
 > Esa A E Peuha   wrote: 
 > >stanley@a.shell.peak.org (John Stanley) writes: 
 > >> >> Yes. You were providing reasons why something WOULD work. In essence, 
 > >> >> "you can solve the problem of X-No-Archive by ..." 
 > >No, I was saying that there is no problem at all. 
 > 
 > If there is no problem, then it would work. 
  
 Which is exactly what I was saying.  Let me quote it here for you (from 
 <86p65771tpg.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>): 
  
 : Second, even if for some reason 
 : only Google searches were allowed, you and other users of X-No-Archive 
 : wouldn't be excluded (searching for "arromdee rahul.net" finds over 
 : twelve thousand matches, many of them by people quoting your posts). 
  
 > >That is different from giving solutions. 
 > 
 > If you were the one who was saying "look for quoted material in 
 > Google", then you were giving a solution to the problem of X-No-Archive. 
  
 That's not what I wrote.  Why didn't you just read what I did write 
 instead of trying to build a straw man? 
  
 > >Can't you see the difference, or are you just 
 > >too subborn to admit that you made an assumption? 
 > 
 > Since I didn't assume anything, 
  
 Yes, you did.  You assumed I wrote something I didn't. 
  
 > I need not admit I made one, nor that it was wrong. 
  
 You did and it was, whether or not you admit it. 
  
 > What's your problem? 
  
 Right now my problem is that you argued about my words without bothering 
 to check what they were. 
  
 -- 
 Esa Peuha 
 student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki 
 http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/ 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)