"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168966726.317308.322230_at_l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Walt wrote:
> > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168882079.488314.138100_at_51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1168831761.571396.308030_at_11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Marshall wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Sure. And since you are of the opinion that theory can steer us
down
> > > > > > the wrong path, and since you regularly deprecate relational
theory
> > > > > > but do not provide an alternative *theory*, I wonder at your
> > presence
> > > > > > in a theory newsgroup.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I had another comprehensive theory, I would not have so many
> > > > > questions or opinions that I want to pass by those who can correct
me.
> > > >
> > > > No one can correct you.
> > >
> > > Many have, Walt, but thanks for the thought.
> >
> > Many have attempted, but you have been expounding on the same incorrect
> > ideas for something like five years now.
>
> Could you point me to proof that something I expound is incorrect?
> Perhaps just starting by telling me what I think to be true that you
> think false, or vice versa, would be helpful. I would very much
> appreciate knowing.
>
this ground has already been covered by others. I see no need to cover it
again.
Received on Tue Jan 16 2007 - 11:48:27 CST
