Re: Latest News

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:41:24 -0700

Pig Bladder wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:07:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>>
>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>
>>>That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just cowardly
>>>vacuous name-calling.
>>
>> I don't see how any kind of "reasoned logical response"
>>is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
>>"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
>>map your statements to reality.
>>
>>>>>>>Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all
>>>>
>>>>structural argument
>>>>
>>>>>>>that is based only on the common human experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another unsubstantiable claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I
>>>>
>>>>always
>>>>
>>>>>intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.
>>>>
>>>> "Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
>>>>reality. You will not define "common human experience"
>>>>because there is no such thing.
>>>
>>>Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking like this.
>>
>> No, that's a result of cognitive mapping in what appears
>>to be common. Actually, we have no conception of what's
>>going on in each other's mind, which should have been
>>obvious from our first converstaion some years ago.
>> You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
>>which you base the structure of your principles, yet you
>>will not explicate that alleged body.
>
>
> Of course there's common human experience. We all *** out of our ass, and
> it's all brown and smells like ***.

   Most of us obey our hardwired aversion to rolling in it
too, but what does that prove?

   Mark L. Fergerson

Quantcast