Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen

[ttxpress]

post/critique the novice's alleged UCBerkely, c. 1962, Polanyi, document/s; otherwise, my comments to 'elextech' (vince) are your's to trash, if you wanna risk it G ~ P 235     On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:51:30 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: G says  >   I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidM wanna be chastised for rejecting some novice's rhetorical philosophical spoon feeding.   That's very considerate of you, G. Perhaps you are right. Would you please teach me about Polanyi, about philosophy in general, that I might know and no longer be a novice?     ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen   On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > G, > >I think you got your message across to them...[one] would >think this is a  chat room. chat's cool, too, Mr. Moderator; as well as the other traditional TT mode/s (inc 'Digest'), partic if it's time worthy to read/interact at all   I'm waiting for some Polanyi at UCBerkely, c. 1962, to read and think about   So, Why would Layman adhere to a philosophy/er he's never studied??   ..perhaps it's wise to remind Bill that not everyone here 'thinks' like Layman; FTR, I'll be happy to speak for (even 'chat' for) those who'd gladly interact with a 'Polanyi' only if they knew more about it; e.g., if Layman or Bill sends us the requestd UCBerkely/Polanyi, etc, and write/s on original thought or two about it, perhaps we all could learn from it, however, I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidM wanna be chastised for rejecting some novice's rhetorical philosophical spoon feeding..     G ~ P 235