On 25 Aug, 08:22, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:38, Flammarion wrote:
> >>> That is false. You are tacitly assuming that PM has to be argued
> >>> with the full force of necessity --
> >> I don't remember. I don't find trace of what makes you think so.
> >> Where?
> > Well, if it;s tacit you wouldn't find  a trace.
> I wake up this morning realizing this was not your usual statement
> that I am implicitly assuming what I am proving.
> So actually you may be right, I do believe that PM has to be argued.

The key phrase is:
"with the full force of necessity"

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to