Bob W wrote:
Don't forget Mill either.
Well, dammit, I guess I'm going to have to post the whole thing. :-)
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Bob W wrote:
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html
Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus
alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!)
That's an interesting site, Kostas! g
They left out Cotty's favourite:
Heia!
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 April 2006 18:11
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote:
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html
Kostas (Si hoc signum legere
Bob W wrote:
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 April 2006 18:11
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote:
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html
Kostas (Si hoc signum
keith_w wrote:
Bob W wrote:
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 April
2006 18:11
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote:
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html
Kostas
On 30/3/06, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
(well, actually anti-colesteralol* non-
hydrowossname spread), and a quick skim of the emails.
* q.v. Manuel in Fawlty Towers :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts.
Paul
Yes, and I used to too...but he fell off his balcony and hit my plonk list
last night.
I'd rather not have done that, but it's for my mental health...
I let my pique rule the moment.
I'll be quiet about it all
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, keith_w wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts.
Paul
Yes, and I used to too...but he fell off his balcony and hit my plonk list
last night.
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, keith_w wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts.
Paul
Yes, and I used to too...but he fell off his balcony and hit my plonk
list last night.
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
On 3/30/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipsome buttered toast
snip
Only in England, must one specifiy ~buttered~ toast...
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:58:25 +0100, frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/30/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipsome buttered toast
snip
Only in England, must one specifiy ~buttered~ toast...
Definitely. One does not wish to consume some poly-unsaturated chemical
mess. :-)
On 3/29/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would hesitate to say, however, that Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas,
Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Wittgenstein, Russell, Arendt,
Sartre, Camus (my personal fave) ought to have their work dismissed.
I may disagree with some of them, I
Godfrey wrote:
good old boy bumpkin philosophy and half-formed thoughts
I really haven't found any good old boy bumpkins on this list. Many
pretend to be such, but after many years here I recognize it as a
charade. This list has an outstanding group of minds, regardless of
degree credentials.
frank theriault wrote:
As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to
mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume.
David 'ume could outconsume Schoepenhauer and Hegel,
and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
--
Thanks,
DougF
Doug Franklin wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to
mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume.
David 'ume could outconsume Schoepenhauer and Hegel,
and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
Godfrey,
IMO, better the man who hasn't studied all these things
and doesn't have to doubt his eyes when he opens them
in the morning.
Anyway, so much for all that.
Cheers,
Gautam
On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Sad in
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:05:46 -0800
The schmuck tells you all that he deliberately tried to insult me, I
responded with something funny, and I'm the bad guy
Last time I was in Edinburgh, I took my picture with this big statue of
Hume. I'm going back in early April and I'll get a digital version.
I'll even get one slightly out of focus for you, Frank.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
On 3/30/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time I was in Edinburgh, I took my picture with this big statue of
Hume. I'm going back in early April and I'll get a digital version.
I'll even get one slightly out of focus for you, Frank.
Yeah,
Tilt it a bit, too...
LOL
cheers,
Don't forget Mill either.
--
Cheers,
Bob
As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot
to mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume. Now
as I peruse my list, I notice that I didn't mention any of
the British Empiricists, so if I'm going to mention Hume, I
But, Keith, look at the opportunities:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html
Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus
alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!)
That's an interesting site, Kostas! g
They left out Cotty's favourite:
Heia!
The only comment worth a response ...
On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
IMO, better the man who hasn't studied all these things
and doesn't have to doubt his eyes when he opens them
in the morning.
It's hard to figure precisely what you're trying to say, but it
sounds like
On Mar 28, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
Science by definition is the study of reality. The study of non-
reality
is properly called mysticism.
Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century
definition.
Bob
Bob Shell wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
Science by definition is the study of reality. The study of non- reality
is properly called mysticism.
Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century
definition.
Bob
Define real.
keith whaley
On 3/28/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am in the US, and formerly a telecommunications technician*, and I
knew what the term POTS meant. So what?
* also formerly a wireman (electrician to lay folk), electro-mechanical
technician, mechanic (auto, truck, heavy equipment, and
A journeyman security guard!?
Shel
On 3/28/06, graywolf wrote:
* also formerly a wireman (electrician to lay folk), electro-mechanical
technician, mechanic (auto, truck, heavy equipment, and industrial),
truck driver, salesman (real estate, automobiles, retail), electronics
technician,
Nope, just a commuter. Of couse some would say that is worse because a
bicycle commuter only rides in the worst traffic. But I always avoided
that main streets as much as possible. After all I am only a bit crazy,
not totally insane. You will notice that attorney is not in that list
either
On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century
definition.
Bob
Bob,
I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they
can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The
study of
Godfrey,
I've heard the term used more and more in software. I guess
it's part of the general trend in the US (*) culture towards using
important sounding words rather than simple words that are
seen as well, simple (and coherent.)
This is the same trend that brought us travesties such as
Science is defined to be:
---
science:
noun
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic
study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world
through observation and experiment : the world of science and
technology.
- a particular area of this :
On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
I've heard the term used more and more in software. I guess
it's part of the general trend in the US (*) culture towards using
important sounding words rather than simple words that are
seen as well, simple (and coherent.)
Workflow has become
The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment
Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
Nothing unreal exists.
Something that is not real cannot be studied in the sense of detecting,
measuring, or collecting empirical evidence. It's always something real or
the manifestation of something real that is studied. Science (used loosely)
or those studying a particular thing may not
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote:
The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical
and natural world through observation and experiment
Sounds like a pretty
You even have software products that handle that layer, for example
IBM's MQ Workflow
On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
I've heard the term used more and more in software. I guess
it's part of the general trend in the US
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century
definition.
Bob
Bob,
I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of
science they
can't. Science is still
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in
the study of Philosophy.
That deserves a drumroll and flourish of trumpets!
Bob
Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and
epistemology), not science.
Godfrey
Actually I find the opposite to be true. Notions of unreality are more
closely associated with philosophy, not science.
Tom C.
Philosophy is one of the last things, that I personally would value an
education in.
It may be interesting, but that's about all it does for me.
Tom C.
From: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29
Bob Shell wrote:
Science no longer seeks to explain phenomena and arrive at any kind of
reality; rather, it now seeks to classify phenomena according to
preconceived models. This, however, is what we would call art according
to our traditional categories.
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or
Science.
Science at one time had the definition of being the search for
truth ... This was true in the Middle Ages when the Church
controlled all higher institutions of learning in Europe and the
search for knowledge
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:18:58 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
That may or may not be so. But I believe Graywolf was talking about
science.
And to me, too, the phrase physical and
On 3/29/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually I find the opposite to be true. Notions of unreality are more
closely associated with philosophy, not science.
Ontology is the philosophy of being. Epistemology is the philosophy
of knowledge.
Logical Positivism a worldview based on
Phenomena may be allowed to exist without the forced imposition of
reality.
IOW, tabled for future revelations without conclusive opinion.
Jack
--- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why philosophy pretty much tends to be someone else's BS.
I won't say how much you know or don't know about philosophy, but I
disagree vehemently with that statement.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
His statement says that it is a pretty good definition of reality,
which is not science. It is therefore not included in the definition.
Ipso facto, Graywolf was not talking about science.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:54 AM, John Forbes wrote:
That may or may not be so. But I believe
Gautam Sarup wrote:
Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality.
I have always thought that science was a *method* of study, rather
than an object of study.
either
supposition or garbage.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:52:26 -0800
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or
Science
On 3/29/06 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
Wow! Your another name must be Leonard da Vinci :-).
You are an artist, educated as a philosopher and know everything else all.
I could be
What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that
can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The
extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for
philosophy/religion/psychology. After all, reality as we know it what
our brains create;
On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that
can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The
extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for
philosophy/religion/psychology.
Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's
view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations
transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1+1 will
always yield 2, no matter what. For Kant, basic arithmetic/mathematics was
]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:52:26 -0800
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or
Science.
Science at one time had the definition of being the search for
truth
On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that
can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The
extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for
philosophy/religion/psychology.
Jack Davis wrote:
It's the journey of study that is stimulated by your obvious and
healthy doubt.
In many cases, garbage is that generated by ones lack of acceptance.
In that case I have several large plastic bags with twisty-ties on them I
would like to ask you to accept as a gift. Kindly
On 3/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's
view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations
transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1+1 will
always yield 2, no
Mark,
But no method can be separated ultimately from the objects
it applies to. That's implicit and doesn't need to be stated. For
instance, there is a method of taking a bath - apply water, apply
soap, wash off. It would not make sense to talk of the method of
having a bath while denying that
Collin,
That's a fantastic observation.
I would go further and state that mankind has benefited
greatly in Aristolelian eras.
Cheers,
Gautam
On 3/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's
view of reality, with
Doesn't mean he's wrong!
On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote:
The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
Godfrey
Oh? And when did he so claim?
keith whaley
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote:
The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical
and
Godfrey,
Physical and natural automatically implies real. The unreal is
neither physical nor natural.
Gautam
On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Science is defined to be:
---
science:
noun
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic
study of the
Bob Shell wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
That deserves a drumroll and flourish of trumpets!
Bob
I question your use of the word deserves.
keith
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:08:16 +0100, frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on
Kant's
view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations
transcend
K.Takeshita wrote:
On 3/29/06 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the
study of Philosophy.
Wow! Your another name must be Leonard da Vinci :-).
You are an artist, educated as a philosopher and know
On 3/29/06, Gautam Sarup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Godfrey,
Physical and natural automatically implies real. The unreal is
neither physical nor natural.
I think that those that believe in God would say that He's real, but
He certainly is neither physical nor is He natural (indeed, He's
From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
That makes you sort of a rare bird around here, Ken.
keith
Well... he has the name for it. :-)
Tom C.
Actually, I already 'lacked to accept' a bunch of stuff that was just
picked up.(garbage day) A part of it consisted of some slides/negs,
artifacts of the past 50+ years. I'll be shoveling at this garbage
pile for a long while, if I last it out. I'm certain my heirs are
wishing me well.
Difficult
Oh well, so we can conclude that logic, like any other human
inventions (like religion .-), can be harmful in the wrong hands.
There´s a popular phrase in Norway saying something like:
When the starting point is most wrong, the outcome is most original.
(Sorry about the bad translation, even
frank theriault wrote:
On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that
can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The
extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:52:26 -0800
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy
or Science.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:08:16 -0500
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Kant is responsible for Hitler and his ilk? That's what
you seem to be saying, so correct me if I've
misinterpreted you.
If that's what you're
If there exists one thing which is real and is also neither physical
nor natural, then your assertion is incorrect.
Is mathematics not real? Please demonstrate with a proof.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
Physical and natural automatically implies real. The
and they
would have equal validity.
Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply
either supposition or garbage.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29
about where the philosophical/scientific lines meet and/or cross over each
other, I think I'm in at least that good of company.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006
Well, here we go again. The world according to Godfrey! Anyone who
doesn't agree with him is an ass. I am not educated at all, I dropped
out of school in the tenth grade. What is your excuse?
I suggest you get some theropy for your personality disorders, Godfrey.
graywolf
and they would
have equal validity.
Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply
either supposition or garbage.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10
On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest you get some theropy for your personality disorders, Godfrey.
Therapy?
Isn't that what this list is for?
LOL
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:20:52 -0800
My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you
demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science.
The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject
Hey, I can't claim ignorance and spell well in the same paragraph. The
would not be self-consistent.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
frank theriault wrote:
On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate
little study of Philosophy or Science.
The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject.
Thats twice in as many days
On 3/29/06 4:38 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not educated at all, I dropped out of school in the tenth grade.
Breathing some fresh air here.
You certainly seem to have a lot of practical knowledge about many things in
the real world which was obviously earned by yourself and
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Sarup
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they
can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The
study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always
The spell it out for since I obviously have trouble uinderstanding your
precise diction.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:52:03 -0800
Your comments
Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that you
are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:38 PM, graywolf wrote:
Well, here we go again. The world according to Godfrey! Anyone who
doesn't agree with him is an ass. I am not
On 29 Mar 2006 at 13:59, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that you
are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully.
Empathy isn't one of your strong points is it? :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10
Graywolf wrote:
I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If you say it
it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially if you did it
a long time ago, it is philosophy.
That's pretty much the way I see it. And if you parrot it in front of a
classroom
On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If you say
it it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially if you
did it a long time ago, it is philosophy. BTW my Meanderings webpages
are mostly philosophical.
I think
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Tom C wrote:
The spell it out for since I obviously have trouble uinderstanding
your precise diction.
It would be difficult to make the precise diction of my statement any
simpler:
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy
or Science.
On 3/29/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip especially
logical positivism.
snip
I forgot to mention that logical positivism is rooted in formal logic
and mathematics. That's hardly opinion or parroting in front of a
classroom.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:56:52 -0500
On 3/29/06 4:38 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not educated at all, I dropped out of school in the tenth grade.
Breathing some fresh air here.
You certainly
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
As an academic pursuit, it's certainly more than a study of
opinions; I wouldn't dismiss it in terms of if you write it in a
thick book it's philosophy. To my mind, that would dismiss the work
of some
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:17 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If
you say
it it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially
if you
did it a long time ago, it is philosophy. BTW my
right.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:25:22 -0800
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Tom C wrote:
The spell it out for since I obviously have trouble uinderstanding
This is not a response to any specific post.
I am reading this thread, shaking my head.
Frankly, I have heard better debates in kindergarten, and that's a non
philosophic observation ;-)
What is going on here? What is the point in insulting each other?
Tim (the party breaker, and social
On 3/29/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of those great thinkers deserve to have their work dismissed.
I didn't say that every philosopher is or was a great thinker. I said
(or at least implied) that ~some~ great thinkers were and are
philosophers.
Of course some philosophers
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Tom C wrote:
Likewise, I believe that I stated with sufficient clarity exactly
what I meant to say and that anyone not seeking to mince words,
would understand the point without further clarification being
required. I suspect most here did. Whether they agree
On 3/29/06, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a response to any specific post.
I am reading this thread, shaking my head.
Frankly, I have heard better debates in kindergarten, and that's a non
philosophic observation ;-)
What is going on here? What is the point in insulting
On Mar 29, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that
you are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully.
Godfrey
You may wish to seek out a definition of ad hominem. What Graywolf
did was insult you. There's a
the indication that he ran out of
resources off his superficial knowledge base, and become afraid of being
beaten. It is not a fair attempt to shutdown the discussion, but this
became a real OT anyway, and I am really bailing out :-).
Ken
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:49:43 -0800
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Tom C wrote:
Likewise, I believe that I stated with sufficient clarity exactly what I
meant to say and that anyone not seeking to mince words, would understand
the point without further
1 - 100 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
