Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: "Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Aug 2005 22:31:03 -0500
Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I told you that the two words are highly equivalent in context
>> of kookdom.
>
> Possibly you thought you did. However, applying the principle of
>charity, I preferred to take your comment literally, as pointing out
>that anything goes if we indulge in a bit of kookery.
But one never needs to apply the principle of charity to oneself!
Ok ok. I see you are an exception.
>Nevertheless, tedious old logic is the main topic of the group.
Oh, you mean the thing that has no concept of "self-proving
procedure," as you asserted? Which I denied so you asserted
again? Which denial I then proved here:
http://tinyurl.com/8udal
(Not that that's my best nor shortest proof by a long shot.)
and which refutation has now been reviewed by many logicians and
still stands?
And which you nevertheless continue to assert? Over and over in
a number of posts?
Yes, besides being well on record as the patron saint of that
canonical Article of Faith in this parish of the priesthood, I
do believe that it issues from your Holy See what is and what
isn't Logic Itself in this particular sect.
And of course nothing outside that system could possibly affect
an Article of Faith, just as in any conscientious system of
religious ... er... let's just say... self-proving procedures.
Larry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: George Dance
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- References:
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Prev by Date: Re: Polish foundations?
- Next by Date: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Next by thread: Re: "Friendly Premises"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|