[spankalee]

"Your hypothesis should be falsifiable, if not testable"

Seriously? There are not strange requirements, and you're ducking the issue by trying to force a pseudo-scientific dialog on this. There are language semantics in play, among many other considerations that I'm sure you're well aware of.

But I don't need to convince you, you're already convinced. Have fun.

[cxr]

> Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

> There are not strange requirements

Huh?

> you're ducking the issue

I am? How? (What is the issue I'm ducking?)

> There are language semantics in play, among many other considerations that I'm sure you're well aware of.

What?

> I don't need to convince you, you're already convinced.

I don't get it. (What am I already convinced of?) You said this wasn't hard. So why does it seem that way?