<p>Only reason I stopped was that it was useless arguing with a stubborn 17 year-old who thinks he’s right no matter what I said. It’s not productive at all. I’m sorry if I thought you were intelligent enough to connect the dots in my post. I guess my estimation was poor.</p>
<p>My only purpose now is to expose inaccuracies and leave it at that. I will also point out, occasionally, that boston1993 is 17 years-old. The purpose of this is to warn other forum members so they can evaluate his posts more accurately. That is, they can take that information into account of they wish. If you would like to do the same to me, you are welcome to do so. Background: I attend a top 5 law school and summered at a Vault 5 firm in New York City. I also know the definition of implicature, unlike you and boston1993. I also know what an ad hominem attack is, unlike you and boston 1993:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said his advice is probably useless. A necessary deduction commits the fallacy. A probabilistic one does not. I hope this distinction isn’t lost on you.</p>
<p>Again, I’m done here. If you want to point out and discuss something relevant to the thread, I’ll be a happy party to that.</p>