Greetings, With regard to non-biological senses and empiricism, consciousness is sufficient to establish my point, although there are others. I would be surprised if there is contention here. Diana suggests that a professor in the US is lower than one in the UK. Here he or she is a very distinguished academic who holds a chair at a university (i.e. the main man) and if this is different to its meaning in the US then I retract that accusation and apologise. My anger was due to my never having exaggerated my position and being indignant that someone should suggest I did. I see that was probably not the intention and am sorry I thought it was, although the fact remains that I have never told anyone that I am a philosophy professor and will not unless I become one which is unlikely. Thank you for bringing that to my attention Diana - I shouldn't let my emotions get the better of me. :-) Roger, it is not a case of paraphrasing and I agree with your comments regarding that and, indeed, use cut and paste less than most. With paraphrasing one keeps the same meaning at least more or less intact and invites clarification if that is needed. When David totally invents 'misquote 1' and gives it a meaning almost entirely opposite to my meaning I get worried. When he then misses out, 'only to,' in the second misquote I could only imagine it is deliberate as the meaning was again transformed into something only an idiot would say or write. As I didn't assert, "that mainstream Empiricism is based on something other than the senses," and as I can't really see that DMB is particularly stupid or outrageously lazy, I can only conclude that his action was deliberate and it is to that I object. Even if it wasn't deliberate, there is no excuse for attributing quotations to someone to whom they partially or completely don't belong and I seem to remember you (Roger) getting a little angry when Bo subjected you to the same treatment a while back. (Shroedinger's Cat thread I believe) If I, as another example, were to go about claiming that DMB wrote in a previous post that, the MoQ is, "an anti-intellectual confirmation of mysticism which denies all logic," he would be rightly pissed off, especially if I did it within a posting designed to make him look stupid. Were it to happen once I would forgive it, but David has a long history of doing this and up with it I will not put. As I have written before, I invite criticism and welcome other ideas. I do not invite any fool to reduce this forum to something akin to, "philosophy goes to Noddy Land." Rant over and I shall conclude by inviting everyone to maintain the high standards of scholarship which normally pertain to this forum and by suggesting that DMB either get his quotations right or paraphrases and ask for clarification when he is not sure of what is being said or finds difficulty in quoting properly (although it baffles me that such a simple task should prove so difficult). Struan P.S. I'm not really into biographies Roger as people tend to jump to conclusions. I love jazz, philosophy and ethics and make a very good living doing and teaching all three. Fortunately I am in the position of not having to do anything I don't want to, so life is as dynamic as I can stand. I am 32 years old and recently married the most beautiful and talented woman I have ever seen. What more can I say? ------------------------------------------ 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]
