JUSTICE AND LAW

[Andres]

I'm not making a logical fallacy. If I say X = Y, then X and Y are the same. If you say X is not = Y, then X and Y are not the same. If they are not the same, then they are different. So, if you say red and dark red are different, then you say they are not the same which is the same as saying red is not dark red.

[TinCow]

I'm not making a logical fallacy. If I say X = Y, then X and Y are the same. If you say X is not = Y, then X and Y are not the same. If they are not the same, then they are different. So, if you say red and dark red are different, then you say they are not the same which is the same as saying red is not dark red.

As I tried to explain, you getting confused over the definition of "red." You are using the word "red" to describe the overall color category used to describe multiple similar shades and hues. That is not the correct definition to use in this discussion, as it was not the definition I was using in my reply to Reenk. Context is very important. As noted, Reenk very clearly was using the primary color definition of red, as represented by hex code #ff0000, as evidenced by his specific use of that hex code in his text. If Reenk had intended to refer to Tech Admin dark red with his use of the word "red" he would have colorized his text of the word "red" with the proper color code, #c11b17. However, he did not do that and instead chose a completely different color code, namely the one used by Forum Admins, which is 'pure' primary color red. Alternatively, Reenk could have intended to use color code #c11b17, but instead made an error and erroneously selected #ff0000. Or, perhaps Reenk was just lazy and decided it would be proper to refer to a Tech Admin's color with the color designated for Forum Admins. Either way, my response was designed to correct his statement, which was wrong.

Regardless, it is interesting that you believe that #ff0000 and #c11b17 are identical. Perhaps you need a new monitor.

[Reenk Roink]

If I may, before this court, object, and represent myself...

Reading the OP, I was struck by his use of RED text. Combined with the request for individuals who possess knowledges in LAW, the first individual who came to mind was TINCOW, who fulfilled both requirements of having a RED color and knowledges in LAW. I am not aware of any other individual on this forum who possesses the same dual set of qualifications. For example, ANDRES may possess knowledges in LAW, but his color is BLUE, and therefore he is incompatible.

It should be noted that I sacrificed precision for convenience to refer to the superset of the particular shade that TINCOW (and also ANDRES) used. Vague predicates were sufficient in this case, because I was not making a point about the exact role of the individual in the forum, which would require precise color codes, but merely a compatibility with the general COLOR of the group that seeks members with knowledges in LAW, namely RED.

[Kagemusha]

Aaargh!My eyes are bleeding.What on earth made me open this thread?

[TinCow]

It should be noted that I sacrificed precision for convenience to refer to the superset of the particular shade that TINCOW (and also ANDRES) used. Vague predicates were sufficient in this case, because I was not making a point about the exact role of the individual in the forum, which would require precise color codes, but merely a compatibility with the general COLOR of the group that seeks members with knowledges in LAW, namely RED.

I accept your apology for your improper color usage and the confusion that it has caused for poor Andres.

[Reenk Roink]

I accept your apology for your improper color usage and the confusion that it has caused for poor Andres.

I needed a better lawyer...

[Andres]

I accept your apology for your improper color usage and the confusion that it has caused for poor Andres.

I note with pleasure that you admit that you were wrong.

Of course, it's not really your fault. I suggest you demand compensation from Reenk Roink for misleading you, causing you to have a discussion with me that could have easily be avoided if only he had been clearer and generally for all damage, physical and moral, Reenk Roink's negligence might have caused you.

I fully support you in taking appropriate measures against Reenk Roink and will gladly accept any punishment you inflict on Reenk Roink.

Quite a convincing victory for TinCow!

You do realize that improper use of colours might get you in trouble?

Maybe the forum needs a disclaimer that pops up every time somebody wishes to change the colour of the text he's going to post. One that forces you to confirm that you indeed read it.

[Andres]

As I tried to explain, you getting confused over the definition of "red." You are using the word "red" to describe the overall color category used to describe multiple similar shades and hues. That is not the correct definition to use in this discussion, as it was not the definition I was using in my reply to Reenk. Context is very important. As noted, Reenk very clearly was using the primary color definition of red, as represented by hex code #ff0000, as evidenced by his specific use of that hex code in his text. If Reenk had intended to refer to Tech Admin dark red with his use of the word "red" he would have colorized his text of the word "red" with the proper color code, #c11b17. However, he did not do that and instead chose a completely different color code, namely the one used by Forum Admins, which is 'pure' primary color red. Alternatively, Reenk could have intended to use color code #c11b17, but instead made an error and erroneously selected #ff0000. Or, perhaps Reenk was just lazy and decided it would be proper to refer to a Tech Admin's color with the color designated for Forum Admins. Either way, my response was designed to correct his statement, which was wrong.

Regardless, it is interesting that you believe that #ff0000 and #c11b17 are identical. Perhaps you need a new monitor.

Oh, I see, you're now inventing your own definitions

Red is red is red.

What you are now using as defence is as silly as me saying "I am not a Content manager on forums.totalwar.org"... "Content manager" in this context meaning "Elephant with orange ears" and "on forums.totalwar.org" meaning "in the local Zoo".

[TinCow]

Red is red is red.

Just to be clear here, are you saying that this color is identical to this color?

[Reenk Roink]

Just to be clear here, are you saying that this color is identical to this color?

No, but I think he is stating that both are RED.

[classical_hero]

[Andres]

Just to be clear here, are you saying that this color is identical to this color?

I never said that.

I said that red and dark red are both red. I also said that red is red. What I didn't say, is what you're trying to insinuate that I said.

Please, don't put words in my mouth that I've never spoken.

[TinCow]

I never said that.

I said that red and dark red are both red. I also said that red is red. What I didn't say, is what you're trying to insinuate that I said.

Please, don't put words in my mouth that I've never spoken.

You took issue with this statement from me:

My color is dark red. There's a difference.

All I said was that there was a difference between the red that Reenk posted any my color. You either agree that there is a difference between the two or you disagree that there is a difference between the two. Which is it?

[Andres]

I already pointed out that you said dark red is not red, which is false. Dark red is also red.