John W Edser wrote:
> PostA29
> 
> 
>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>How can a rule that purports to draw a line in the
>>>>>sand between OFA and OFM  only support OFA
>>>>>when that line has been proven to only be arbitrary?
>>>>
> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>Because it doesn't purport to draw a line in the sand.  I
keep on asking
>>>>for evidence from you that it has been used to do this, and
so far you
>>>>have failed to provide any.
>>>
>>>JE:-
>>>I repeat:
>>>The evidence is simply, the rule _was_ used to
>>>support OFA after classical group selection
>>>failed to do so. You agreed that this was the
>>>case. Unless the rule HAD BEEN USED to separate
>>>OFM from OFA such a claim would have been logically
>>>impossible.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Huh?  Are you now saying that the rule hasn't been used to separate OFM
>>from OFA?
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Not "hasn't", "can't". Here is the logic again:
> If the rule cannot separate OFM from OFA
> then it _cannot_ be used to support OFA in
> nature. The rule _has_ been used to support
> OFA in nature. Therefore the rule has been
> and remains to this very day, _misused_.
> 
So are you saying that the rule has been used to separate OFM from OFA? 
  If you are, can you cite some examples from the literature?



Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/14/04 12:41:45 PM