[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 04:51, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
> I see it more as a response to name-dropping rather than a refutation of an
> argument. If there had been an argument put forward I could have responded
> (or not) to it.
>
Andrew.
A. That was not meant to be name dropping it was meant to be a reference
to a set of arguments that I expected you to recognize. You claimed not
to recognize them, then you make two puns that seem to imply that you
are familiar with the relevant literature.
B. You have substantive arguments on the table, from me and from others.
If you choose not to answer them, I am strongly led to the conclusion
that your <for discussion> tags are bogus. Am I wrong in expecting
someone who puts out a controversial proposition 'for discussion' to
defend it?
IOW, are you playing games or are you seriously advancing your
proposition?
Frank
|
