... Aside from
Doug's word "Wrong," the two statements are, of course, not mutually
exclusive.

If the roller furlers work only a small percent of the time
"in situations like this" then it is wrong to say that they
always fail. In other words, the two statements *are*
mutually exclusive.


Dave wrote:
If RF works only a small percentage of the time "in situations like this," I
don't think I'd want it regardless of whether or not the literal statement
that it always fails is an overstatement.


I guess the difference between "an overstatement" and
"wrong" is an ideological point, eh?


But Joe's statement is susceptible to two readings. The second reading is
that when RF fails it's always in situations like this.

Which would also be wrong, because sometimes roller furlers
fail in different circumstances.

If you're going to look at cases in the real world, I stand
by my asertion that nearly all (90%) of roller furler
failures are due to buying a cheap one (including one that
is undersized for the load), mis-installation of it, or
improper maintenance... or, of course, a combination of two
or more of the above. IMHO there is no weather or sailing
situation that directly leads to roller furler failure in
any measurable percentage of cases.

In other words, wrong.
Again.



... A slight hyperbole,
perhaps, but hyperbole is a perfectly valid way to make a point.

When the point is wrong to start with? And then hammering
that "slight hyperbole" into the ground?


...Not the
same as saying that in all situations like this RF fails.

Well, that's what Joe said.

In logic terms,
"all A is B" does not imply that "all B is A."


Of course not. Are you implying that I somehow said it was?

DSK