Literally nobody in this subthread has claimed any of that. Good job Jose!

If someone isn't willing to endure a process that provides no guarantees and is instead willing to risk it all to come here, then they should reconsider how much they want to be here. Yeah that makes sense.

Are you being serious? I can't tell.

lol oops yeah, I just realized he said "smaller". That still makes no sense!

If the author indeed meant that, then yes, we would obviously prefer something that makes sense over something that does not.

Uggggghhhhhh! Who is writing this crap?

And this is why the technical reasons seem more logical to me. Your argument for two spaces is the same argument for three spaces and ten spaces and is a subjective matter, and the subjectivity of the users and readers of typefaces and type renderers should be a consideration of the ones designing the typefaces and renderers. If you have to circumvent technical standards in order to be readable, then the problem isn't about whether two spaces are used.

The change was necessary because the old standard was based on technical limitations. You can be told to use two spaces by every professor you ever encounter and still be wrong to do so. That's nothing to be ashamed of so long as you are willing to understand why you were wrong and willing to correct your habits. You don't keep doing things just because that was how it used to be done. These arguments that people are coming up with are so strange to me.

Your argument against the technical reasons why you shouldn't do something is based around your personal taste. You're using your subjective preference (and nobody else's) as a counter-argument against absolute reasons. This isn't "I like it this way/Well I like it this way". It's "These are the facts/Well I disagree because of my opinion". There might not be a consensus about the correct form, but it certainly wouldn't be based on one person's aesthetic taste.

With whom are you disagreeing? Have you considered that? The OP wasn't discussing what your personal preference is; he was discussing the correct form. You're using your taste as a counter-argument to fact.

This is also an argument for separating sentences by three spaces and ten spaces.

That's not how the contract works. You buy the phone and fully own it under the condition that you enter a contract. That's it. This is why people are legally able to sell their phones before the contract ends. You can't sell someone else's phone. You don't begin your contract owning only 1/3 of your phone or whatever.

I interpreted his post to say: Before the courts had affirmed my right to mod, it was already legal. Since they've now granted that right explicitly, they are implying that it wasn't a right before (otherwise they wouldn't have to grant it to us now). Whether or not you agree with the OP, he wasn't invoking a fallacy the way I interpreted it. Once granted, the right--or privilege, really, since it is a permission being passed down from a higher authority--can now be revoked. Before we explicitly received the permission, nobody could take it from us.

Then surely you can identify which fallacy he used. (Hint: it's not actually a fallacy.)

This is why I love that Opera comes build-in with all the features you need and a lot more."

Why would I want a lot more than the features I need?