Ian:
> > 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 ?
Ian:
> 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.
SA: I have no clue what ghost Bo is chasing. Yes,
I'm on this ghost trip recently, but it seems to fit.
Bo you seem to saying 'stuff' that has nothing to do
with what I was talking to you about, hmmm.
Bo:
> 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 .
SA: ooookkka
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
