Greetings,
I'm bringing this up as a point of order because I genuinely believe DMB should not be
allowed to
behave in the way he does. It debases the whole forum and, I suggest, should not be
tolerated. I
refer you to my posting from 10-09-99 and David's reply from 12-10-99 for a prime
example of what I
am talking about.
David; I have never said that I am a philosophy professor, and I see no reason for you
to lie about
such things. I very rarely respond to you, simply because you demonstrably thrive on
complete
misrepresentation, and always re-invent others' positions to suit yourself. Thus I
keep my response
short and resent having to correct your distortion of my own position at every turn.
I did not say that empiricism is not based on sense experience, I said it does not
solely allow for
biological sense experience. An example, to answer your badly phrased and distorting
questions (see
my last sentence if you can't understand why) is the empirical experience of
consciousness which
very few (or possibly no) empiricists would deny.
Please do disagree with me, but cut the dishonesty, misrepresentation and lies.
LIE 1: "he tells us he's a Philosophy professor" I did? When? Quote me directly.
MISQUOTE 1: "Struan's assertion that mainstream Empiricism is based on something other
than the
senses." I did not assert anything of the sort. Show me where David. Go on, quote me
directly.
MISQUOTE 2: "..the specific accusation that mainstream empiricists admit verifiability
by the
biological senses, is quite wrong and Platt's critique is misplaced" I did not write
that David. I
wrote: "the specific accusation that mainstream empiricists (John?) admit only to
verifiability by
the biological senses, is quite wrong and Platt's critique is misplaced." They mean
two entirely
different things. One is utterly stupid, the other correct.
DISTORTION 1: "I'd say Locke's statement is an epistemological claim, not a
metaphysical
formulation, as Struan says." I did not say that. I said that Locke formulated
empiricism as a
metaphysical position and used his statement as an addition to that point. (but, as
you say, this is
not important)
I invite you to retract your comments David and suggest that you learn how to read
what people say,
not what you think it would be easy to refute. Your lack of integrity and thought does
you no credit
and I shouldn't have to waste time writing e-mails such as this.
Is this sort of thing against the rules Horse? I would have thought it should be
incumbent upon
every member to check that they quote others accurately at the very least.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
