Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:55:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <v59r2b$fc9m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v4okn9$flpo$2@dont-email.me>
 <20240617002924.597@kylheku.com> <v4pddb$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:55:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="44f9587782b302f9526421ea8c2f43d0";
	logging-data="504118"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pnU8Y51z0aAeHAyQzSDTZE70WN7+NFsQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:coZZ9tp3SPAJRECN+uYO3xIWB0E=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <868qyvhai4.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Bytes: 2624

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.

-- 
Check out my hobby project.
http://malcolmmclean.github.io/babyxrc