From: | Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:50:42 -0700 (PDT) |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio |
Yet the syllogism is wrong:====================================================
Main premise: "NMT is essential"
Secondary premise: "GM's DE theory *is* NMT"
Conclusion: "DE theory is essential"
==================================================Axiom, unlike Dogma is by definition
refutable and so is my RD, axiomatic,
thus refutable, thus essentially
anti-absolute.
Do you mean, absolutely anti-absolute?==================================================