|
|
Posted by Els on 12/07/07 22:56
dorayme wrote:
> In article <no7n2wvme3tk.73uvrzuyruwr$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article <fjb4pf$mjn$1@aioe.org>,
>>> +mrcakey <mrcakey@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING
>>>
>>>> I think, if you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
>>>> users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable
>>>
>>> (1) The very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a
>>> BAD THING
>>>
>>> (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
>>> your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
>>> acceptable
>>>
>>> (3) Most sites DO link to outside
>>>
>>> (4) Most site authors WANT users to come back
>>>
>>> (5) Most sites should use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)
>>>
>>> (6) If you use frames and want to link to outside, you use
>>> target="_blank"
>>>
>>> (7) Using target="_blank" is a GOOD THING
>>>
>>> ergo
>>>
>>> (8) The consensus that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING is
>>> false
>>
>> Nah, point 2 is false, rendering the conclusion at point 5
>> non-existent, making point 3, 4 and 6 irrelevant, point 7 meaningless,
>> and thus leaving us with the original at point 1: opening outbound
>> links in a new window is a BAD THING :-)
>
> I guess, then, you don't appreciate my reductio ad absurdum. If
> you don't, there are not many others that will, given you are one
> of the sharpest. Perhaps this will help to give you a better
> understanding of it:
>
> It is not me that asserts the truth of (2). This is asserted by
> the person to whom I am replying. (2) is an assertion. But I did
> not assert it. Lets go though the whole thing:
>
> +mrcakey comes along and says both (1) and (2).
>
> So I put them both down to see where such a conjunction leads to.
> And if you look closely, it leads to 7 and 8 which shows that
> there is something wrong with believing both 1 and 2. This type
> of argument is sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum.
I actually did get it, but just liked to refute the conclusion with a
more indepth analysis ;-)
As for the term 'reductio ad absurdum', I didn't know it, but it
sounds like a good term for the concept. Would that be the same thing
as that mysterious mathematical calculation that (by sneaking a
non-truth into the equation) seems to prove that 1 = 0?
(sorry for lack of snippage - couldn't make up my mind on what to
leave in or out)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|