2011-01-19, 03:28 PM
octopusprime Wrote:Really? Because what you're saying i said is pretty different than what i said.
Rather what you meant isn't what you said because what you just restated contradicted the literal meaning of what you originally said.
| What You Said First | What You Say Now |
|---|---|
What you just said "Without M you can still have string. Without string, there can be no M" contradicts String being a subset of M, and is exactly what I, and Wikipedia, just told you.
You're using component in the recipe sense, not the foundation/structural sense.
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.

