John M wrote:
> --- Georges Quénot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> John M wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Don't be a sourpus, I was not attacking YOU.
>> Well. I do not know exactly why I felt concerned.
>> I probably missed your point.
>>> [...]
>>> By George! (not Georges) don't you imply such things
>>> into my mind after my decade under nazis and two under
>>> commis, now 3+ in the (hypocritical) US 'free' speach!
>> Well. OK Again. But what was your point then?
> Georges,
> I am not sure whether I wrote this to you in personal
> or list-mail, you did not quote my text.

I think it was on the list (I just hit "reply").

> After going through a thousand posts of the same
> subject and none is relevant to my thinking, forgive
> me if I get edgy. I do not repeat the exercise to find
> where and upon what did I write what.
> Could you leave it this way?
> I did not want to offend you.

That's OK. I must be too sensitive on these subjects.
I do not want the debate to turn passionate either.
I was just asking what you intended to mean by:

] 2. Is reasonable or rational thinking exclusive for
] ONLY those, who live in a 'numbers' obsession?
] or is it an elitist heaughtiness to look down to all,
] who do not share such obsession? How about vice versa?

] 3. Suppose the 'numbers based' worldview gains
] universal approval (by ~3006?) - what will that help
] in the betterment of the world? or even in the
] betterment of human thinking? Or even of more civil
] general life- conditions?

What you said just above is a sufficient answer for me.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to