A question

[Motoma]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Perhaps these should be added to the FAQ.

I sure am glad this discourse led to something productive! :D

[MMcCarthy]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Perhaps these should be added to the FAQ.

I sure am glad this discourse led to something productive! :D

If you two have nothing better to do, I'm sure I could find something to keep you busy.

[Savage]

If you two have nothing better to do, I'm sure I could find something to keep you busy.

Hahahh,busted..


Savage

[Motoma]

If you two have nothing better to do, I'm sure I could find something to keep you busy.

Does involve correcting this problem in the FAQ?

[MMcCarthy]

Does involve correcting this problem in the FAQ?

You are welcome to refer your suggestions regarding the FAQ to Banfa. I'm sure he'll receive them in the spirit they deserve.

[Banfa]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Read again

[NeoPa]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Perhaps these should be added to the FAQ.

I sure am glad this discourse led to something productive! :D

What was so complicated in what I said that you were able to miss it so many times? If '!'=tolower('!' ) proves that it is not upper case, then surely '!'=toupper('!' ) is just as strong proof that it is upper case.
Generally, when items proven using specific 'logic' are contradictory, then that 'logic' can be considered to be flawed.

My 'logic', though flawed in itself (I'll leave you to discover why), was a far closer approximation to a valid rule for determining upper case.

[Banfa]

What was so complicated in what I said that you were able to miss it so many times? If '!'=tolower('!' ) proves that it is not upper case, then surely '!'=toupper('!' ) is just as strong proof that it is upper case.
Generally, when items proven using specific 'logic' are contradictory, then that 'logic' can be considered to be flawed.

All these arguments are based on the implicit assumption that case is an attribute that applies to the character '!'. It is not it only applies to letters. Therefore the assumption is false, but both arguments assume it is true.

They have assumed something that is false to be true and therefore anything can be proved.

[Motoma]

All these arguments are based on the implicit assumption that case is an attribute that applies to the character '!'. It is not it only applies to letters. Therefore the assumption is false, but both arguments assume it is true.

They have assumed something that is false to be true and therefore anything can be proved.

From false premises, anything can be concluded.

[MMcCarthy]

From false premises, anything can be concluded.

It was a stupid bl**** argument in the first place.

These two would probably sit for hours and argue about whether or not black is a colour. Oh! That reminds me of someone else, I wonder who.

[RedSon]

It was a stupid bl**** argument in the first place.

These two would probably sit for hours and argue about whether or not black is a colour. Oh! That reminds me of someone else, I wonder who.

Bloody 'ell !

[MMcCarthy]

Bloody 'ell !

Don't tell me you want to start too.

[r035198x]

It was a stupid bl**** argument in the first place.

These two would probably sit for hours and argue about whether or not black is a colour. Oh! That reminds me of someone else, I wonder who.

Technically speaking of course the absence of all colour cannot be called a colour.

[MMcCarthy]

Technically speaking of course the absence of all colour cannot be called a colour.

I give up, you're all hopeless :p

[NeoPa]

They have assumed something that is false to be true and therefore anything can be proved.

From false premises, anything can be concluded.

A point I made in post #57 I thought.