 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) That's a pretty pathetic comeback. I thought you said you are clever - I'd figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed. (...) Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could figure it out. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Well, we can't... but we CAN spotlight stuff we agree with. You got my vote on this one, Brother Sproat. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
|
(...) Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below) was old (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Indeed it has. You might want to parcel it out a bit cautiously, as it would be a shame to run out of it too soon. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) It's times like this when I wish we could score articles as "Troll" and "Obvious ego autoflagellation" like on Slashdot... :-P Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Let's keep you thinking that way, shall we? (...) I like how you say I failed in my stated purpose, but then fail to explain why. Not that it's any real surprise. (...) If you say so. (...) No, not at all. When I take a side I try to argue and (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
Oops, in case anyone caught it I sorta used the f word in my last post, I didn't mean to do that, I have since applied a filter in my Lugnet spell checker which will alert me to it if it happens again. Again I apologize to anyone who has been (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) More sophistries. And yes, I can say it (there it is above). Not only that, I'm right. (...) You failed in your stated purpose. It seems you aren't as clever as you like to think you are. (...) Sometimes known as jerking people around. What's (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
|
(...) Not at all. An entire text that I have written may represent the truth of what I believe, however when things are taken out of context, they do not represent the truth of what I believe. Therefore as a whole it is true, but not when broken (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Oh really, how so? (...) Oh, and whose logistic standards would those be? I'm partial to Copi and Cohen's work myself. You do realize that logic isn't exactly something written in stone, right son? (...) Ahh but that's putting it into your (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
