You are wrong.

Rob said *all* of the above were correct. So you can do both (and all other combinations anyone will come up with eventually).

Yes, you can purchase bioware in alpha/beta/delta and cultured.
And yes, you can purchase cultured bioware in alpha/beta/delta.

No harm done!

Bye
Thanee

P.S. But it's obvious enough, that he only meant the second part... since for the first there are no rules whatsoever, except for the few pieces of cultured bioware listed in the book.

Sweet, I'll take a double-delta basic cultured pain editor to go. I have a coupon.

You want fries with that?

Ah, yes, the old "reverse." And don't forget "straw man" and "slippery slope..."

It was clear all along (to me anyway) that the argument was over whether or not the word "grade" in the second paragraph meant exactly the same thing as the word "grade" in the first paragraph. I argued that it did. To recap: (1) both paragraphs are headed under the title "Implant Grades," (2) the first paragraph is referring to the grades available for both cyberware AND bioware, and (3) the second is set apart from the first because it is referring to an additional grade (total = five) which is available only for bioware. If that interpretation is inconceivable to you, then all the worse for you.

From there I argued: "'Cultured bioware is a grade.' If it is implicit that grades do not stack, then it is implicit that 'Cultured bioware does not stack.'" There is one reason and one reason only why this argument fails. I'm going to help you along by identifying it for you: a false premise. As it turns out, cultured bioware is not a grade (in the fullest sense of the term).

False premises affect the soundness of syllogisms, but not the validity of them. Therefore all of your random groping for fallacies to accuse me of is for nought. Having said that, you may now resume your groping.

I never said it wasn't true. But since you seem to fancy yourself a logician, you should know that there is a difference between "There are four x's" and "There are four and only four x's." That distinction is rarely observed in casual speech, but is strictly observed in the philosophy of logic, so unless someone uses the latter expression, it isn't necessarily clear which is meant. Likewise, the difference between an "inclusive or" and an "exclusive or" is rarely observed in casual speech. If a parent says to a child "You can have cake, or you can have ice cream," what they most likely mean is "You can have cake, or you can have ice cream, but not both" (exclusive or). However, this is a cultural and/or regional phenomenon and not reliable in all cases.

The last point to be made about page 303 is that cultured bioware is specifically exempted from the category of wares with "standard pricing." "Standard pricing" is only mentioned as a means to calculating upgraded pricing. Therefore, if Cost Multipliers only affect "standard prices," then one might be inclined to infer that Cost Multipliers do not affect cultured bioware. It is ridiculous to assume that this means that upgrading cultured bioware does not increase its cost; it is more reasonable to assume that this means that cultured bioware cannot be upgraded. Again, if that interpretation is inconceivable to you, then all the worse for you.

Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I haven't already said four times before, so I doubt that it will help you understand. And the argument has, at any rate, now been settled by Rob.

Thanks to Rob for answering the question.

I'm going to have to sit this one out.

Only after a while, but the more interesting thing was (to me anyway), why that assumption is false.

True, but meaningless for any technical application.

Sure, as in casual speech, those stem from the context, which follows conventions too, even though unwritten ones.

Yet, both are reverses and this is where your theory initially came from.
On the other hand, as you were stressing, both possibilities would be equally valid.

Don't worry.
It may sound unlikely, but there is that possibility of people disagreeing with you even if they understand what you are trying to say.

I am accepting of reasonable disagreement. Petty insults and mischaracterizations of an opponent's position do not fall in that category.

Yes. However, conventions are not logical requirements, and besides, they tend to be very plastic from one individual to the next. The best that one can do is use context to make an inference, not a deduction, about the intended meaning of a particular word. I think that (for instance) the context of page 64 supports my interpretation; whereas the context of a lack of rules for culture-grading supports yours. For a tie-breaker, we need an independent source. That ultimately was Adam, but in his absence I proposed following precedent. About the only other option was to wait for Augmented. Now may this thread R.I.P.