Hang on a mo, Bo - not like you to throw insults around. (Not being coy on any previous question ... just didn't notice / have time to respond, whetever ... can come back to that if the question stands. Ask again / point me at the context of the missed question.)
Clearly I haven't missed "that any metaphysics has an axiomatic unprovable-assertion / inexplicable-entity at its core" - it's a cracked record I keep playing myself - and I re-infiorced with my agreement again. I was just asking a very simple question "did you think SA and/or Ron had missed (or misunderstood) that ?" Regards Ian On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ian > > Sun May 11 You wrote > > > Interesting change of tone there Bo ? > > > But if all you are saying is that any metaphysics has an axiomatic > > unprovable-assertion / inexplicable-entity at its core - then "Hear, > > hear." > > > Do you think Ron and/or SA are missing that ? > > What you and Ron are missing I don't know, but the Sprit at least must > have slept through all classes from kindergarten onwards. Accusing > me of the DQ/SQ being an axiomatic assertion as if THAT is a > sensation. I'm still reeling from her show of ignorance. > > Is this cryptic style to be understood that you too found that > sensational or something you knew all the time, no need to be coy Roy > I also asked you how you see the MOQ resolving the nature/nurture > paradox, haven't heard a word from you about it so you (too) obviously > don't know how the MOQ is applied . > > Bo > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
