Dan Minette wrote: > One of the things that I would like to do is break the cycle of > repeated arguments, that tend to exist after mostly the same people > cover mostly the same territory. One thought I had was triggered by > the use of the word "rational" in several posts. I started thinking > about framing the argument in terms of axiomatic systems, seeing what > is derived from various sets of axioms, and what just appears to be > derived from a casual use of the axioms.
Maybe I am just dense, but I cannot see what the above paragraph had to do with the balance of the post. > Well, this post has gotten long while giving us just one axiom. But, > I think it helps lay the groundwork for explaining my thinking. I'd > welcome any critique of this analysis. > And I didn't see what I would clearly identify as *the* axiom. Maybe you are doing this in reverse?!? It might be easier to understand if you stated your axioms first and then explained and analysed them in individual posts. I'm lost here. :( xponent But Interested Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
