[PrimeMcFly]

> Right. So that's my point. Css is logical.

Well, yes and no. It depends on context. You know, nuance.

Like I said, it can be technically logical, but that doesn't mean it is logical in the colloquial sense.

The point made in the article is to refuse a claim that CSS is not logical in the colloquial sense, it is not trying to refute that it is technically logical which is the point you are making.

[corethree]

I disagree. The colloquial understanding for logic is technical. OP is using the term incorrectly and in a strange way. I understand that most of us can still 'understand' his point but that does not mean he's using the term colloquially or correctly. Think about it.

I get what your saying here but basically the article and all responders are dodging the real issue here with this wordplay.

The OP article is actually saying CSS is not terrible. And people who disagree are saying yes in fact css is terrible. It's just a way to be not so on the nose about saying css is a shitty way to do things.

You missed my point which may be my fault as it's a bit obscure the way I said it. Let me rephrase it to be more clear:

I'm saying it's pointless to say or claim css is logical. He's using the term incorrectly. The real argument here is really about whether or not css is shitty or not shitty and using the term logical is not only dodging the point, but also awkwardly using the word logic.