Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 64 (24319)
11-25-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by forgiven
11-25-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i think i already answered you long ago on this... remember? if you want to deny the existence of the universe, i said, then maybe this isn't the thread for you... why not just leave it to those who *don't* deny the universe exists? that way you'll be happy, i'll be happy, and those who want to see where this goes will be happy
Lets put it this way, do you believe the universe exsists or do you know that the universe exsists?
If you know, how?
If you don`t know that the universe exsists don`t you think that that is a weakness in your arguments?
I`m just trying to make sure you build it on a good foundation rather than an assumption....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 8:05 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:21 AM joz has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 64 (24394)
11-26-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by joz
11-25-2002 9:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Lets put it this way, do you believe the universe exsists or do you know that the universe exsists?
If you know, how?
knowledge *is* belief
i really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'... knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind... can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?
assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning, ie i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists? obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window...
now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true, it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse view
i can argue for the existence of the universe on intuitive, inductive, and deductive grounds, but to the person who insists all is illusion, all will remain illusion... you might be a huge brain in a universal vat imagining all of this, and if you believe that to be so nobody can convince you otherwise... but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief?
Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space
now i'm aware of other theories, the multiverse one for example, but look at the definition above... the *whole* of all, etc etc... if, as you affirm, "I" exist (cognito) then there is energy or matter or space, correct? and if "I" happen to be all that exists, then "I" am the entirety of the universe... correct?
so no matter how you look at it, the universe exists... some might differ on what it is ("I" only), but that's another question

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 9:06 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 11-26-2002 10:21 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 38 by joz, posted 11-27-2002 9:19 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 64 (24404)
11-26-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
11-26-2002 9:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'...
The weird part to me is that you insist on skipping the first step. No offense....
quote:
knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind...
Sorry, no dice. I'm not buying your buddy Plantinga's epistemology. It is a house of cards. Is this the thread where we were discussing that?
quote:
can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?
Without empiricism, what does it mean to verify?
quote:
assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning
Just a note, I think Plantinga's 'properly functioning mind' is the assumption of something that doesn't exist. 'Properly functioning' is a very very hard thing to pin down.
quote:
i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists?
What if you do have mental or physical defects that MIGHT result in a belief you hold? How do we know THAT these defects do in fact result in the belief you hold? How do we know your belief's are a function of the part of your brain that works?
I really should move this Plantinga stuff to the other thread.
quote:
obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window...
This is weird to me, because this 'truth' is fluid across cultures, assuming you look outside of christian/greek/roman derived cultures. Cultural anthropology ought to cure this ethnocentrism but noboby bothers to read the cultural profiles.
quote:
now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true
Glad you realize that. As I read Plantinga though, this seems to be exactly what he is trying to slip in the back door.
quote:
it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse view
Fine, as far as it goes. But what is proof? The opinions of properly functioning minds? Dangerously close to circular.
quote:
i can argue for the existence of the universe on intuitive, inductive, and deductive grounds, but to the person who insists all is illusion, all will remain illusion... you might be a huge brain in a universal vat imagining all of this, and if you believe that to be so nobody can convince you otherwise...
Well, what you've got here is a counter to your arguments-- postulated in the first sentense-- for the existence of the universe. Seems to me that everything is working the way it should. We start with the majority opinion and criticise it, but then...
quote:
but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief?
Here is the sneaky bit. You appeal back to the properly functioning mind idea to get out of the difficulty. In other words, those that disagree have improperly functioning minds. No longer dangerously circular, but quite decidedly circular.
quote:
Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space
You've defined universe to include everything no matter what it is, so long as it exists. This is not typical usage in philosophy and should have been specified. More typical usage, and the usage implied in your initial statements is that of a dualism-- I and Universe.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:21 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 1:48 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 64 (24436)
11-26-2002 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
11-26-2002 10:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'...
The weird part to me is that you insist on skipping the first step. No offense....

what first step? and none taken [quote]
quote:
knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind...
Sorry, no dice. I'm not buying your buddy Plantinga's epistemology. It is a house of cards. Is this the thread where we were discussing that?[/b][/quote]
no, diff thread i think... but john, before you accept or reject my buddy's epistemology, he really has some excellent books out.. now it's true you may share my preference for internet-based resources, but they can't really do justice to his philosophy... not saying your first take is in error, merely that there's far more to it than either i or the web can supply [quote]
quote:
assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning
Just a note, I think Plantinga's 'properly functioning mind' is the assumption of something that doesn't exist. 'Properly functioning' is a very very hard thing to pin down. [/b][/quote]
maybe so... depends on how properly one's mind functions *grin*... just kidding... it is far deeper than i've portrayed [quote]
quote:
i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists?
What if you do have mental or physical defects that MIGHT result in a belief you hold? How do we know THAT these defects do in fact result in the belief you hold? How do we know your belief's are a function of the part of your brain that works? [/b][/quote]
now now, i stated "assume for the sake of argument" and you didn't so assume!! tsk tsk [quote]
quote:
obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window...
This is weird to me, because this 'truth' is fluid across cultures, assuming you look outside of christian/greek/roman derived cultures. Cultural anthropology ought to cure this ethnocentrism but noboby bothers to read the cultural profiles.[/b][/quote]
so much to read, so little time [quote]
quote:
now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true
Glad you realize that. As I read Plantinga though, this seems to be exactly what he is trying to slip in the back door.[/b][/quote]
nah... sure, a world with inmates running the asylum can be imagined... but ... [quote]
quote:
it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse view
Fine, as far as it goes. But what is proof? The opinions of properly functioning minds? Dangerously close to circular.[/b][/quote]
i don't know, in this context... why not attempt a proof for "the universe doesn't really exist?"... the point seems to be (to me), the burden of proof should rest with the one holding such a belief [quote]
quote:
but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief?
Here is the sneaky bit. You appeal back to the properly functioning mind idea to get out of the difficulty. In other words, those that disagree have improperly functioning minds. No longer dangerously circular, but quite decidedly circular. [/b][/quote]
i disagree (thus showing an improperly functioning mind? *grin*).. it isn't circular when the term 'knowledge' is defined... it would be if i was equivicating on the terms, ie if i used that definition in one but not all instances... your disagreement with the definition doesn't ipso facto make the definition itself wrong... nor right [quote]
quote:
Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space
You've defined universe to include everything no matter what it is, so long as it exists. This is not typical usage in philosophy and should have been specified. More typical usage, and the usage implied in your initial statements is that of a dualism-- I and Universe.
[/B][/QUOTE]
sorry, i really thought the term was understood and accepted as such... btw, the definition wasn't mine... here's another, merrian~webster:
Main Entry: universe
Pronunciation: 'y-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
that would seem to include "I" eh? as i said before, some might disagree as to the contents of the universe, but granting even cognito presupposes the universe... therefore, the universe exists by definition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 11-26-2002 10:21 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-26-2002 11:43 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 64 (24529)
11-26-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by forgiven
11-26-2002 1:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
what first step? and none taken
The examination of your premises.
quote:
not saying your first take is in error, merely that there's far more to it than either i or the web can supply
Look. Everything I can find about the guy tells me that he tracks pretty much with thousands of minor and forgotten philosophers. And he reminds me especially of certain branches of modern philosophy characterized predominantly by the profound shallowness of their work. There. I've said it. Not impressed. Not even intrigued. I see nothing to justify the effort.
quote:
it is far deeper than i've portrayed
I don't believe you. Sorry.
quote:
now now, i stated "assume for the sake of argument" and you didn't so assume!! tsk tsk
But you see the fragility of Planinga's construct yes?
quote:
it isn't circular when the term 'knowledge' is defined...
Nope. It is circular precisely because the term is defined. You've got your epistemological model of truth being the output of properly functional brains. You line up some brains and some of them disagree. So to sort out which ones are reliable you appeal to the epistemological model. In other words, knowledge from brains which is reliable because it is from brains..... brains brains brains....
quote:
that would seem to include "I" eh?
Not to many of the most famous philosopher is history. Dictionary definitions are dangerous. Dictionaries record colloquial and sometimes conflicting usages of words. You really ought not assume that everyone has your dictionary and picks the particular nuance that you choose. I actually never looked up the word, but went with what seems to me to be the most common usage in philosophy.
[quote][b]but granting even cognito presupposes the universe...[/quote]
[/b]
cogito ergo sum-- Descarte can be dismantled simply by asking where is the "I" that you presuppose is thinking?
quote:
therefore, the universe exists by definition
As per your definition...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 1:48 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 12:17 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 64 (24531)
11-27-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
11-26-2002 11:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
what first step? and none taken
The examination of your premises.
i already did # 1 long ago, and nobody objected... more below.. as for 2, it appears the objection is based on the definition of the term 'universe'... i can't do much about that outside of using your definition.. but why should i? i hope i'm not accused of appealing to the authority of the dictionary
quote:
Look. Everything I can find about the guy tells me that he tracks pretty much with thousands of minor and forgotten philosophers. And he reminds me especially of certain branches of modern philosophy characterized predominantly by the profound shallowness of their work. There. I've said it. Not impressed. Not even intrigued. I see nothing to justify the effort.
ok, no more about plantinga after this... even tho he has nothing to recommend himself for you, he is highly thought of in philosophical circles by theists and atheists alike, the latter even consoling one another after being mauled by him in debates with a term *they* made up... "you've just been plantingized"... but ok, no more
quote:
cogito ergo sum-- Descarte can be dismantled simply by asking where is the "I" that you presuppose is thinking?
know what sometimes amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have been "dismantled"... earlier i answered your objection here... the "i" is whomever is reading... in this case, you... if 'where' you are is important, it only becomes so after you establish whether or not you exist... it's nonsensical to ask 'where' a non-existent you is located...
you are thinking, ergo you exist... you are a thing, ergo some thing exists...
quote:
quote:
therefore, the universe exists by definition
As per your definition...
at the risk of repeating myself, it isn't my definition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-26-2002 11:43 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 11-27-2002 12:53 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 64 (24540)
11-27-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by forgiven
11-27-2002 12:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i already did # 1 long ago, and nobody objected...
People have been objecting all throught the thread as it appears to me. And are generally being told to go away if they won't accept your presuppositions.
quote:
i can't do much about that outside of using your definition.. but why should i?
Yep. You can work out what it means to exist among other things.
quote:
know what sometimes amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have been "dismantled"...
Want to know what amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have NOT been "dismantled". They have been.
quote:
you are thinking, ergo you exist... you are a thing, ergo some thing exists...
Think about this.
>>>>>I<<<<<< am thinking
Therefore,
>>>>>I<<<<<< exist.
It is damned blatant textbook obvious circular. The conclusion is assumed in the premise. The end.
quote:
at the risk of repeating myself, it isn't my definition
You don't get it. It is your argument, it is YOUR definition.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 12:17 AM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 64 (24575)
11-27-2002 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
11-26-2002 9:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
knowledge *is* belief
... knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind... can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?

John has already addressed a lot of the points I would have however I would like to point out that saying that knowledge is "true warranted belief" merely rolls the question back a stage to become how do you know its a belief that is true and warranted.....
So?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:21 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 9:45 AM joz has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 64 (24578)
11-27-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by joz
11-27-2002 9:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
John has already addressed a lot of the points I would have however I would like to point out that saying that knowledge is "true warranted belief" merely rolls the question back a stage to become how do you know its a belief that is true and warranted.....
which means, how do you know what passes for knowledge *is* in fact knowledge? ... in any event, your last phrase is the whole point... for example, you believe you possess knowledge that there is no Creator of the cosmos.. is this an accurate statement? if it isn't for you, it is for someone reading... i believe i possess knowledge that there *is* a Creator... now we know that
P or Q
~P
Q
so one of our two knowledge claims is simply that, a claim... one of us is wrong... but let's accept for the sake of argument that neither of us can prove our claim to others, empirically... how, in that case, can our respective claims be anything other than beliefs? for the one of us who is correct, his belief would happen to be true, thus that one would in fact possess "knowledge"
as for 'warrant', it's not as difficult a concept as it appears to be... we get so wrapped up in semantical arguments here, and that really seems a shame... i'm willing to grant the concept that your mind is properly functioning, ie it isn't under the control of an alpha centaurian (but i grant this only for the sake of argument *grin*), you have no serious mental or physical defects that might lead to irrational thought... you should grant the same.. this ties in with the "innocent until proven guilty" view... it's simply an evidentialist vs. anti-evidentialist argument, and one leads to a more open discourse in which a person's knowledge claim is viewed with an open mind
see, for a long time in discussions like these, one side (usually, if we're honest, the atheist/agnostic side) would say "i won't believe until you prove God exists"... christians rarely counter with, "but why don't you have a burden of proof in this?"... the reason is because there's an antipathy between the views whereby one or the other is unwilling to really *listen*... all i'm saying is, fruitful discussion is all but impossible under those conditions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by joz, posted 11-27-2002 9:19 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-27-2002 11:12 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 64 (24596)
11-27-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by forgiven
11-27-2002 9:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
P or Q
~P
Q

You are so funny with your little diagrams.
1. A ⊃ (B ⊃ C)
2. B ⊃ (C ⊃ d) / ∴ A ⊃ (B ⊃ D)
3. A / ∴ B ⊃ D (C.P.)
4. B / ∴ D (C.P.)
5. B ⊃ C 1,3, M.P.
6. C 5,4, M.P.
7. C ⊃ D 2,4, M.P.
8. D 7,6, M.P.
quote:
it's simply an evidentialist vs. anti-evidentialist argument, and one leads to a more open discourse in which a person's knowledge claim is viewed with an open mind
So, in other words, you've gone a very long way to get to 'we both disagree'
quote:
christians rarely counter with, "but why don't you have a burden of proof in this?"
Same reason we don't have the burden of proof for the disbelief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, magical french fries and Plantinga's wit . Basically, I can make up anything I want and the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove it. That is patently absurd. How will you respond? Well, what evidence do we have for unicorns? ... but my belief is evidence!!!! ta ta taaaaaaaaa ........ I win!!!!!!
I cannot believe you do not see how hollow this philosophy is.
A bit more seriously, the burden is on YOU to disprove Kali (my fave), Peli, Quetzalcoatl and coutless others.
quote:
the reason is because there's an antipathy between the views whereby one or the other is unwilling to really *listen*
Back to my contention that the entire contruct is an plea that we play nice.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 11-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 9:45 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 3:55 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 64 (24638)
11-27-2002 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
11-27-2002 11:12 AM


ok john... what are your definitions of:
knowledge
universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-27-2002 11:12 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by graedek, posted 11-27-2002 7:29 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 43 by John, posted 11-27-2002 10:23 PM forgiven has replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 64 (24683)
11-27-2002 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by forgiven
11-27-2002 3:55 PM


bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 3:55 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 64 (24695)
11-27-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by forgiven
11-27-2002 3:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok john... what are your definitions of:
knowledge
universe

knowledge:
What is the source of information? What is the most basic thing we have to work with? Perceptions. You know, those irritating bumps, whirs and whistles that get in the way of there not being anything at all. I am not aware of any way to bootstrap oneself out of this perceptual world. So we cross our fingers and make one assumption: there are dependable patterns in the chaos. Once you have dependable patterns, you are in like Flynn. These patterns, and the analysis of these patterns, are what we call knowledge.
The Universe:
The Universe can remain undefined. I really don't see the need for it.
Now dear forgiven, it is your thread and your turn.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 3:55 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 11:23 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 64 (24706)
11-27-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by John
11-27-2002 10:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
What is the source of information? What is the most basic thing we have to work with? Perceptions. You know, those irritating bumps, whirs and whistles that get in the way of there not being anything at all. I am not aware of any way to bootstrap oneself out of this perceptual world. So we cross our fingers and make one assumption: there are dependable patterns in the chaos. Once you have dependable patterns, you are in like Flynn. These patterns, and the analysis of these patterns, are what we call knowledge.
hmmm... so in your opinion knowledge is the analysis of dependable patterns which we observe or perceive... and even the dependability of these patterns we base on an assumption? no mention of the analysis being in fact true, i suppose since the pattern we're analysing is itself based on the assumption it's dependable?
quote:
The Universe:
The Universe can remain undefined. I really don't see the need for it.
Now dear forgiven, it is your thread and your turn.
well this is so funny... i did define both, you didn't like the definition of universe i posted yet won't offer your own... in that case, we'll use mine by default
{Fixed 2nd quote structure - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by John, posted 11-27-2002 10:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John, posted 11-28-2002 12:03 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 64 (24720)
11-28-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by forgiven
11-27-2002 11:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
hmmm... so in your opinion knowledge is the analysis of dependable patterns which we observe or perceive... and even the dependability of these patterns we base on an assumption?
So far you've got it.
quote:
no mention of the analysis being in fact true
Didn't think I'd have to spell everything out... We have dependeble patterns, which we analyze-- find the patterns, find the bigger patterns, find the hidden patterns, whatever. It is a compare and contrast game.
quote:
i suppose since the pattern we're analysing is itself based on the assumption it's dependable?
Reliable. That was the assumption.
quote:
well this is so funny...
I agree. You asked how I would define universe. I wouldn't define it. And I don't need to define it, that I can see.
quote:
i did define both, you didn't like the definition of universe i posted yet won't offer your own...
I am not trying to make your argument work. That is your job. And I don't have to offer a definition of your term in order to point out the problems of your definitions. Defining your terms isn't my job. I'll define my terms when making my arguments.
quote:
in that case, we'll use mine by default
Don't really care that much actually. I can't think of anything useful you can do with a definition as broad as the one you've got. I pointed it out because your usages had confused me.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 11:23 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024