On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:14:05 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
>On Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:47:11 PM UTC, David C. Ullrich wrote: > >> Sorry. The question is indeed related. So closely related that, if I >> >> recall correctly, my reply to your question about the word >> >> "surprise" addressed instead the use of words like "clearly" >> >> and "trivially". Hence my confusion. >> >> >> >> When you make a post asking about use of the word "eviidently" >> >> please make sure to point out that it's a new question. Thanks. >> > >"So closely related that..." is obvioulsy flawed logic. You're saying that the two questions must be similar because some responses in one thread would not have been out of place in the other thread. This is not good logic on your part.
I was explaining why _I_ thought the question was the same as the previous one. What I said really is the reason.
>If you're "sorry", then I don't get why you finish your post with such sarcasm.
Possibly you can find someone to explain it to you.