Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers <twirlip@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:38:28 +0000
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:21:53 +0000, I wrote:
/Ad hominem/ attacks apart, you have told me nothing I don't know,
and your arguments are not worth dignifying with an answer.
I should clarify that. If you weren't clearly indulging some
animus against me, I would indeed reply politely (and no doubt
at too great a length!) to your arguments. I wouldn't want to
discourage anyone else from putting any of the same points to
me, if they thought it worthwhile. But although I don't know
what you're up to (I lack your infallible psychic insight), I
know you're up to something, and I'm not going to indulge you
any more than I can help.
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
.
- References:
- The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: quasi
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: quasi
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Prev by Date: The limit of the series
- Next by Date: find limit (function in two variables)
- Previous by thread: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Next by thread: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Index(es):