← Back to context

Comment by llm_trw

1 year ago

>I never claimed that I was reporting on the whole arc of publishing law over hundreds of years. I was laying the foundation for the next sentence, which is pointing at why this was so important to put in the US Constitution.

Printed press invented: circa 1440

US Constitution drafted: circa 1780

1780 - 1440 = 340

>hundreds of years

Hmmm.

>That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying.

If your argument is based on false premises then there is no substance in your conclusion.

3 comments

llm_trw

Reply
wpietri  1 year ago

I have no reason to think you even know what my argument is based on, because all I've seen are nitpicky side-tracks.

  • llm_trw  1 year ago

    >If your argument is based on false premises then there is no substance in your conclusion.