Have a great weekend.
Otis
Keith Whaley wrote:
Hi Otis!
Hah, ha, ha! No he won't!
Those of you who were able to understand what I'm saying, already got my
point(s), agree with me or not, understand me or not. Those who are still disagreeing and arguing with me about it - didn't.
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know what THEY meant, and whether they know what *I* was trying to say is sort of beside the point. Perhaps I might have tweaked enough folks to actually start thinking about what they read. To read words for sense, and not simply believe something because it's what they've always heard, or what they've always read.
Think for yourself Question what you don't understand.
If you don't get the answers you want, ask again...
Don't accept ambiguous, blurred and overly complicated writing and so-called "reasoning," if it doesn't make sense to you.
This thread is a perfect example of defending muddled thinking and refusal to accept new ways of thinking about things. Ooops! I didn't mean "things." I meant concepts. <g>
I'd be most happy to continue any further discussion of this topic OFF
line, but I think Otis has made a very good point...enough is enough. I've already joggled the hide-bound thinking of those capable of
determining what I meant -- those who care enough to reason it thru for themselves.
But, this tree will take a while to bear any fruit.
That the seeds have been planted is enough for now.
Off my box, standing down... <g>
keith 'appleseed' whaley
* * * *
"Otis C. Wright, Jr." wrote:
Now you've done it. Keith will be at this for another week.
Otis Wright
Herb Chong wrote:
that's why it took so long for zero as a concept to appear and be accepted.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Pairs
A space is not a definable as a 'thing.'
keith
