Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:13:54 GMT
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:57:48 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta
<bilotta78@hotpop.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> Albert doesn't address the issue, but instead insults
>> you
>
>It was pretty obvious right from the start that Albert Wagner
>and Lester Zick are just trolling around (I'm still not sure
>about Tony; he's either a much more refined troll, or a truly
>interested, but blatantly uninformed, chap; I'll give him the
>benefit of doubt and keep answering his posts more seriously).
Sure. There are much easier ways of trolling around than defining
mathmatical concepts for mathematikers they can't quite seem to define
for themselves. Unless of course you're really stupid enough to think
that your usual spelling for Tolstoy is really usual.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
