Feels like a lot of fiddle faddle. There is some serious cross-purposes talking going on here (meaning neither of us is getting what the other is saying because we are focused on different things).

But anyway, I put (without) behind "until" to indicate that the until fills the same function (in my view) that "without" does in my original statement, quoted below.

"I kind of react when pedes on the board say "I don't trust X" or "I don't trust Y" etc. particularly when it is coupled with "without N condition"

What I was saying is that when someone expresses the view that "I won't/don't/can't trust P until he does/unless he does/without him doing Y...." I find that approach objectionable. In other words, when the viewpoint is expressed that the trust will only be forthcoming on some sort of condition that purported person or group has to fulfill.

It's that attaching some condition to the giving or withholding of trust that personally, I think indicates something else going on. Some sort of attachment.

I think you then misunderstood my comment after that, highlighting that you DID have some condition (aka "unless")!!! Seems like you thought I was saying you did not attach some condition to your I won't trust....", but I was in fact emphasizing that point, that you attach some condition!!!!

Crossed wires!

But whatever. Maybe that means nothing to you. It doesn't really need to. It looks like I failed in being able to communicate or express my thinking in a way that you can understand or relate to. Not saying the failure is yours or mine. Just that the wavelength appears to have not been accomplished.

”That's what I'm saying. It almost implies that if Elon DOES to N, you WILL trust him.”

Logic doesn’t work this way. A=> B doesn’t mean B=>A, so no worries, I won’t stop if he does B.

Er? huh? you may think logic doesn't work that way, but human communication does!!!

"I won't go out until it stops raining!!!" A perfectly normal, coherent sentence of communication in everyday normal English. And, it implies I WILL go out if it stops raining.

I said what you wrote "almost implies". If you think it doesn't ok. I disagree.

I don’t have to form my sentence using IF … THEN … Free speech isn’t a programming language.

I think we can leave it there. It seems pretty clear that this exchange is not very productive. I'm not suggesting, implying or stating that you have to form your sentences in any way whatsoever. Please don't draw such an inference!

I have merely been attempting to discuss some of the thought structures and ideas that to me, your writing is expressing, and to communicate some of the thoughts I have around that, and the topics that were raised by your comment.

But I think we can scratch this one up to: <no common wavelength>

And if that's my fault, I'm sorry for that.

Thanks for commenting to the post originally! And thanks for being on the board!

best of luck with everything, fren. Maybe we'll have better luck if there is a next time.

Feels like a lot of fiddle faddle. There is some serious cross-purposes talking going on here (meaning neither of us is getting what the other is saying because we are focused on different things).

But anyway, I put (without) behind "until" to indicate that the until fills the same function (in my view) that "without" does in my original statement, quoted below.

"I kind of react when pedes on the board say "I don't trust X" or "I don't trust Y" etc. particularly when it is coupled with "without N condition"

What I was saying is that when someone expresses the view that "I won't/don't/can't trust P until he does/unless he does/without him doing Y...." I find that approach objectionable. In other words, trust will only be forthcoming on some sort of condition that purported person or group has to fulfill.

It's that attaching some condition to the giving or withholding of trust that personally, I think indicates something else going on. Some sort of attachment.

I think you then misunderstood my comment after that, highlighting that you DID have some condition (aka "unless")!!! Seems like you thought I was saying you did not attach some condition to your I won't trust....", but I was in fact emphasizing that point, that you attach some condition!!!!

Crossed wires!

But whatever. Maybe that means nothing to you. It doesn't really need to. It looks like I failed in being able to communicate or express my thinking in a way that you can understand or relate to. Not saying the failure is yours or mine. Just that the wavelength appears to have not been accomplished.

”That's what I'm saying. It almost implies that if Elon DOES to N, you WILL trust him.”

Logic doesn’t work this way. A=> B doesn’t mean B=>A, so no worries, I won’t stop if he does B.

Er? huh? you may think logic doesn't work that way, but human communication does!!!

"I won't go out until it stops raining!!!" A perfectly normal, coherent sentence of communication in everyday normal English. And, it implies I WILL go out if it stops raining.

I said what you wrote "almost implies". If you think it doesn't ok. I disagree.

I don’t have to form my sentence using IF … THEN … Free speech isn’t a programming language.

I think we can leave it there. It seems pretty clear that this exchange is not very productive. I'm not suggesting, implying or stating that you have to form your sentences in any way whatsoever. Please don't draw such an inference!

I have merely been attempting to discuss some of the thought structures and ideas that to me, your writing is expressing, and to communicate some of the thoughts I have around that, and the topics that were raised by your comment.

But I think we can scratch this one up to: <not working>

And if that's my fault, I'm sorry for that.

Thanks for commenting to the post originally! And thanks for being on the board!

best of luck with everything, fren. Maybe we'll have better luck next time?