Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Giuseppe Bilotta (bilotta78_at_hotpop.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:09:56 +0100
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:35:22 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
> Lots of statements are contradicted by any dictionary,
So you know better than those who wrote Chambers, Merriam-Webster, Oxford
...
Congratulations. Why don't you write a dictionary, while you're at it,
instead of books noone will read?
-- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta Hic manebimus optime
- Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|