Thread:NeonSpotlight/@comment-3017217-20150307200227/@comment-3017217-20150313203949

Double Slap wrote: P.S. The solution in the earlier response was to clarify your point. I fail to understand this part...

I consider clarity synonymous to the restraint of ommision of information(here chastisement to Badgering).

By the Transitive Property of Euclid's Axioms(If two variables are each equal to a third they must be equal between them) This produces the following logical fallacy The policeman is an instrument Mandolin is an instrument So the policeman is a mandolin Policemen are an instument of civil order while the Mandolin is a Music Instrument there is no third variable they are mutually equal to so we avoid the logical falacy The above is only produced because we omit information.

Where do I the reo(lat: defendant) take place; how to do I clarify the claim the claimant/plaintiff made?