On Thu, 2 May 2002, Dan Minette wrote: > Marvin, I'm hurt to the quick. So I'm not important enough to include all > the sly post modern digs you have gotten at me in our metaphysical > discussions on the "you've been a bad bad Marvin page?" Indeed, your last > post should be included in your list of bad behavior, because one can > deconstruct it to be horrendeously insulting to me. Wait, Julia wasn't > mentioned either. And from PoMo we know ommissions are very important. > Julia, you might consider going over to Marvin's house and slapping his > fingers for the both of us.:-)
Dan, I apologize. I truly thought you didn't get any of those digs and therefore was not actually offended. And to think that I was relaxing in complacent laughter at your crude attempts to affix Kantian metaphysics to a PoMo world! Indeed, I've always been astonished by your reluctance to rely on the popular device of using PoMo to justify any and every possible assertion. It would be far easier to defend Kant that way than by crudely invoking dubious comparisons to quantum mechanics, if for no other reason than that all us liberal-artsy types might at least "understand" you then. I suppose your reluctance to rely on PoMo is rooted in what you consider to be sound logical and ethical principles, but when did sound logic and principles ever win an on-line argument? :-))) Marvin Long Austin, Texas GCU Omission, What Omission?
