Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:34:13 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <86sex2e1ve.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v4pddb$m5th$1@dont-email.me> <20240618115650.00006e3f@yahoo.com> <v4rv0o$1b7h1$1@dont-email.me> <20240618184026.000046e1@yahoo.com> <v4sd75$1ed31$1@dont-email.me> <877celzx14.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v4u85k$1t2pu$2@dont-email.me> <v4ucmn$1u14i$1@dont-email.me> <v4v2br$22c0m$1@dont-email.me> <v4v5nu$230rh$2@dont-email.me> <v4vfrn$24rv6$1@dont-email.me> <v50n9s$2fkko$1@dont-email.me> <v50poh$2g4ha$1@dont-email.me> <87iky3svqh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <874j9nxsdy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <874j9ns382.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <86h6dlhb34.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8734p3rjno.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <868qyvhai4.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v59r2b$fc9m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 18:34:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b3b1304951eae8dc1e53ef86c96f1e35";
	logging-data="1084362"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18MJLsy/xR/WGAoGiyEqYDfNucgOIFx+44="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E8ycRjKPnZ99J0UpFmX9aitM3TM=
	sha1:dPbew0U7TRME3TUZco4UJVNnVpU=
Bytes: 2561

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On 23/06/2024 17:47, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's a serious suggestion, and I'm sorry if it came across as
>> condescending.  I did this search myself, and learned something from
>> it.  The important point is the "consistent with" is something of an
>> idiomatic phrase, and it doesn't mean "equivalent to" or "the same
>> as".  Maybe you already knew that, but I didn't, and learning it
>> helped me see what the quoted passage is getting at.
>
> We've established that the wife was in the house at the time when the
> husband was killed.  Which is consistent with her having done the
> murder.  But it doesn't by itself prove that she did the
> murder.  However had we been able to show that she was elsewhere at the
> time, that would not be consistent with her having done the murder,
> and so she would be dropped as a suspect.

Please don't post this sort of stupid pointless comment again.