Re: Not always joking, it seems

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:59:46 GMT, Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>mike weber <fair****tfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>news:1enpr3tivruio9h4tiffumb8i7tm1krp8j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Ummm, in the ocntext you made the statement, it's not 
>different.
>> 
>> You said that there was amurder.
>> 
>> You said that it was a murder, rather than assault or GBH, 
>because the
>> killer had a gun.
>
>I did not. Get a dictionary and learn the use of it.
>
>> (A) It wouildn't have happened if he didn't have a gun
>> 
>> (B) But he did have a gun
>> 
>> (C) It happened
>> 
>> If all the above are true, then it happened because he had 
>a gun.
>
>You could just as well claim it happened because he lived in 
>San Jose. However, even though it wouldn't have happened had 
>George lived in San Francisco, his living in San Jose was not 
>the reason he committed the act. See in particular the 
>discussion of the difference between "because" and weaker 
>words in the Random House entry.
>

Never mind.  You just can't see it, can you?

Was or was not your initial statement (essentually) that he
couldn't/wouldn't have committed the murder if he hadn't had a gun?