On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:00:06 +0000, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:25:03 +0000, Derek Potter <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > You've missed the sub-thread.  In this particular argument, the rate
> > > of consumption is the *given* variable.
> > 
> > OK, well we now know the answer is "incoherent".
> 
> Well, it was you that made the statement - here it is:
> 
> DP:
> > > > Yeah, well it comes to the same thing - depends whether "consumption"
> > > > means total consumption or rate of consumption. Twice the rate, four
> > > > times the total. W(v) is quadratic, like E(v) is quadratic.
> 
> Cynic:
> > > Not for a given delta time, no.  Twice the rate of consumption equals
> > > twice the amount used over a given time period.
> 
> DP:
> > For infinitesimal delta. For the period of acceleration you must
> > integrate. Hence quadratic.
> 
> The meaning of your words is that you stated that if fuel is consumed
> at twice the rate (e.g. 2 l/s instead of 1 l/s) then after a given
> time you will use four times the fuel.

No it isn't. You seem to be incapable of understanding plain English. 

Or of writing it: "The meaning of your words is that you stated that",
really!

What I said was correct. I set rate and total as different possible
meanings to the word "consumption". I then said "Twice the rate, four
times the total".

> I expect that is not what you meant to say

No, what I meant to say was what I said.

> but read your own words -
> it is what you said. I was disputing that obvious fallacy,

Which doesn't exist anywhere except in your own imagination. 

> and you accuse me of being incoherent!

I also accuse you of being illiterate.