Whereas I don't think you are nasty. If the key for you is intentionality, then I would say your intentions are good. It's not exactly my key, which explains the deviant sound pattern interpretation. Coming back to your question, I defined circular reasoning here as "not leading anywhere, only referring back" to the speaker.
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas : > More rhetoric Gabby. Your killing curiosity is not mine. Can you explain > what circular reasoning is? You repeatedly come back to the rather nasty. > > On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 9:21:14 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: >> >> I need to hurry, before Allan wakes up and enters the scene .... >> >> What you are doing looks like circular reasoning to me, not leading >> anywhere, only referring back to you. Demonstrating selected faith fossils >> as proof how humans have killed curiosity does not make you look any less >> zealot moron-like. That's the price you need to pay when your target market >> is the points business. >> >> What do want here, Neil? Maybe we could help you to find you the right >> peer group so you could get whe you want to get. >> > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/yDzn3Mhp_8I/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
