[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01331: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

From: Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

--- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:

=====================================================
A:
Yet the syllogism is wrong:

Main premise: "NMT is essential"
Secondary premise: "GM's DE theory *is* NMT"
Conclusion: "DE theory is essential"
====================================================
G:
It is wrong indeed and should be replaced with:

1. Some proper NMT is deemed essential
2. RD endeavors to be one of possible NMTs
3. RD may be deemed worth while considering
along with other possible ones.
===================================================
G:
Axiom, unlike Dogma is by definition
refutable and so is my RD, axiomatic,
thus refutable, thus essentially
anti-absolute.
==================================================
A:
Do you mean, absolutely anti-absolute?
==================================================
G:
Read up some handbook for illiterates to find what
"essential" means.

And don't bother to answer. I could say, we'll leave
it at that, but there is no "it", nor "that", so
I'll just stop losing time reading empty chains of
characters.

Georges
==================================================


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]