I wonder if John did.

The object is "you" - him.

I don't have to address what you've said, because I'm not the one who said the things you're talking about.

I must also hasten to add that although the dictionary definition of "converse" does turn "I love you" into "You love me", the philosophical definition doesn't. And anyone who (like you) fills their absurd comments with a barrage of philosophical catchphrases they barely understand must face the consequences of trying to fall back on the dictionary definitions of words they've used in a philosophically incorrect sense. The consequences are being sellotaped to a bulging scarecrow in the middle of the night and being forced to compete in a staring contest with him until one of you fills your shorts.

Neither is typical. To say they are is to avoid addressing what I've said.

Yes, of course, how brilliant. Why didn't I I see that Frost wrote to me? And why can't you see that he did rely on his neighbor, not as a writing instructor, but as a man of wisdom?

I must also hasten to add that there is no such operation as "reversing the elements of a proposition." Perhaps you mean "switching the order of the variables in an application of a dyadic predicate."

A typical woman's position: "You are wrong because you aren't obsessed with your own emotions." Also a typical woman's idea of a typical man's position: "I am right because I am logical."

1, 2 "Converse" applies when the elements of a propositioin are reversed, i. e. "I love you" and "You love me." Opposite is something that is diametrically opposed to the proposition, i.e. "I hate you." Contrary describes something that contradicts a proposition, i.e. "I do not love you." Reverse can describe either of these. 4. The difference between your example and my poem is the same as between all of your smug flaunting of logical correctness and my stretching of life metaphorically beyond your limits of feeling. Need I say that yours is all a kind of math, supposedly connected by reason, whereas mine relates felt life in unusual ways. When I say my dictionary is a compendium of devolution, you complain, and when I say it records my history before I lived it, you complain. And your objections are trivial logic without a shred of life. Last time, you fell back on your education, this time on stoicism, contortions of language, extreme arogance, and not a trace of kindness. Your education is of no more interset to me than your complexion or the way you walk. Your written words are all that matter here. You must be a hard man to live with, Mr. Zodiac.

Those aren't "official" scripts, you mincing oaf. "Transcribed by Mike Mahoney". TRANSCRIBED BY MIKE MAHONEY. They are Mike Mahoney's idea of A REAL GOOD TIME. Of course he's made the same mistake as Dovina has. They're both major thickos!!!!!1

That won't stop me and it will further increase the ranks. It's actually a good thing.

It's not mastery, sorry.

It might interest you two to know that in all of the official "Back to the Future" screenplays (available here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/hillvalley/bttf1.htm, http://members.lycos.co.uk/hillvalley/bttf2.htm, and http://members.lycos.co.uk/hillvalley/bttf3.htm) the correct amount of power is only expressed numerically - ie, "1.21 gigawatts".

You just think that because you type much more slowly than I do.