Checking a Number for Palindromic Behavior

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 10/22/2009 12:35 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:53:29 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2009 03:13 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>> > rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> >> On 10/21/2009 01:40 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> >>> As a metaphor, which one do you think is better in the long term:
>>>>> >>> charities or microcredits?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Both of course.  Why on earth would anyone think there is a simple,
>>>> >> single, best answer for complex problems?
>>> >
>>> > Nope, read again. On the *long term* (as I have stated in the
>>> > question), microcredits is proven to be much more effective to
>>> > solving poverty. In the short term, charities will have much quicker
>>> > effect but not one that is lasting and in fact too much charities
>>> > makes a lot more problems.
>>
>> Uh, let's see, charity is no longer needed since micro- credits have
>> been *proven* to eliminate their need.
>
> Lie did not say that. Rurpy, how stupid do you take us for, leaving Lie's
> direct quote there in your email and then outrageously misrepresenting
> him like that?

What he said was, "which one do you think is better
in the long term: charities or microcredits?"
I said, "both" (thinking in the sense that both are
necessary.)
He said, "Nope".
I concluded that means one or the other is better
followed by the unjustified conclusion (influenced
by his incorrect claim that microcredits were
*proven* and *much* more effective than charity)
that if one was better then the other was unnecessary.

My apologies Lie, for misrepresenting you.

However I don't agree that micro credits are
"better" (whatever that means) than charity but
am not interested in arguing the point here.