And what, my dear, about a page saying “other rules may have been adopted” suggests anything others than that different rules may have been adopted?
You know by know that no-one but you agrees with your interpretations. You can’t find a single explicit agreement with them. Reposting the same pages that you are misinterpreting is very silly, isn’t it.
I haven’t deflected. I told you to go read up on the history of it and you would discover what was being talked about. Since you apparently don’t know how to use Google either, here’s a link for you
The contents of the book day nothing about the “rules” only about the symbols, so lining this book doesn’t answer the question.
In general, responding to a question with “you haven’t read enough” is, indeed, deflection, and is a sign you can’t answer. If you could, you would! Simple.
And what, my dear, about a page saying “other rules may have been adopted” suggests anything others than that different rules may have been adopted?
You know by know that no-one but you agrees with your interpretations. You can’t find a single explicit agreement with them. Reposting the same pages that you are misinterpreting is very silly, isn’t it.
says person revealing they haven’t read about the history behind that comment 🙄
All the textbooks agree dude, which you would know if you had read more, but you’ve chosen to remain an ignorant gaslighter
With what?
says person who can’t post anything that agrees with their silly interpretation 🤣🤣🤣
answer the question, deflecter :)
I haven’t deflected. I told you to go read up on the history of it and you would discover what was being talked about. Since you apparently don’t know how to use Google either, here’s a link for you
The contents of the book day nothing about the “rules” only about the symbols, so lining this book doesn’t answer the question.
In general, responding to a question with “you haven’t read enough” is, indeed, deflection, and is a sign you can’t answer. If you could, you would! Simple.