Reading some disputes in Hatena blog or other blogging services made me realize that there is no inferring insiginificance from incomprehensibility. There seem to be not a few people who, after reading an article that makes no sense to them, conclude that it bears no siginificance from the fact that it is incomprehensible to them. But hardly any thought is necessary to find this conclusion totally illogical. My teacher once said, "Compare denying someone arbitrarily and affirming someone on a whim. The former is a lot worse than the latter. You should deny only denials." It seems to me that those who commit this fallacy, namely inferring insiginificance from incomprehensibility, deny those of different opinions only whimsically.