Bob Calco wrote: >> So long as you don't forget that you should not take the "way" I say >> things seriously but that many a time the underlying message is deadly >> serious. >> > > Funny, you and he want slack for *how* you express your very serious > opinions, but extend none of that slack to others, like Mike or me. > Now you've got it! Good! > >> Trouble is us people tend to only believe what WE came up >> with, >> > > I agree! > > >> so if I get serious and explain every issue and it's ramification it >> will be deadly boring and you'll probably come up with a counter for >> every one of them (logic is a whore). >> > > Well this is convenient, and disingenuous, since you're always harping on > the rest of us to defend everything logically. > That has to do with the internal consistency you talk about later. Logic is a whore, but I can't stand stupid. > I agree logic is a Whore. The best we can ask of logic is to help identify > internal inconsistency between our assumptions, our premises, our predicates > and our conclusions. First truths are not proven, or disproven, by mere > logic. They require experiential evidence to validate, which is a Liar as > often as Logic is a Whore. Metaphysics, alas, is a Bitch. > Now you're talking! You forgot to mention the fact that in any of these analysis there are tons of things (reality is complex) that we consider to be out of the scope of the problem, but we don't PROVE that they are out of it, so there you have another big hole through which people usually cheat. > I actually enjoy learning about other people's logical conundrums and > experiential quandries, Damn! And now he starts with four syllable words. > as much as I enjoy exposing my own, but if someone > wants to get into a pissing contest with me in terms of research, logical > explication and consistency, I think I've demonstrated amply that I can do > more than go toe to toe. > So you are just a teenager engaged in a pissing contest. Grow up! > You guys just can't admit it, or handle it, so you reduce the conversations > to ad hominems. > Shit! I wish I could read minds as you do, must be a christian thing to know exactly what other people can or can't admit or handle. > > Actually I know you're capable of the other method and wish you'd try it out > more often. You give up too easy on yourself---ergo you do the same to > others. > And you don't know half of it. Many times I can't express the finer points because of lack of words or.... expression twists(?)(does that mean something in english?), so I leave many things out. You just see the coarser part of my logic process (imagine how bad it would be if english was my first language).
>> >> Why shouldn't he, you are nuts....certified! And the whole group thinks >> so..... except the other nut cases as Mike, Pete, etc. Look at you, if >> that kind of people were agreeing with me and praising me they I'd know >> it's time for a great introspection and to examine everything in my >> image of the world. >> >> > > Same could be said of the cadre of kooks you hang with. > > Actually I like a lot of folks on this list, And yet you just called them kooks (whatever that means). > >>> attach that label to me >>> >> And he is absolutely right. >> > > Blah blah blah. > > Now you're getting it! > >> Nah! You bored him to death, as you did every one of us. >> > > Right. Sure. > > LOL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
