 | | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Since you cast aspersions on Chris' reading comprehension in (URL) is inexcusable that you should fail to read his subsequent post correctly. He is not questioning the "reasons" for your assertion; he's questioning the "reasoning" for it. Can (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) And I mention to you, Dave! right now, that questioning 'the reasoning for the assertion' instead of the 'reasons' for it, makes my point *even* more clear-- If I were to ask: Is black, black? I have my reasons for saying that this should be (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (This is a very interesting thread to follow, imo :) something isn't right here: (...) no, C1 will only follow if P1 said: P1: Science can explain only the physical universe. Which is not the claim that was made, I believe. I'm not sure what would (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
