Re: Objects and Relations

From: David BL <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: 19 Feb 2007 01:21:37 -0800
Message-ID: <1171876897.705038.54140_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 19, 4:19 pm, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 fév, 01:06, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:48 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 4:39 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > "It seems to be the closest fit to how the mind works"
>
> > > > Gah....Unghhh....<gnashing of teeth/>
>
> > > I know what you mean.
>
> > > The phrase "how the mind works" is high on my list
> > > of signals that sets off the crank-o-meter. It's ideal
> > > for the crank because it sounds super-smart and
> > > it doesn't mean a goddamn thing.
>
> > > Marshall
>
> > All I'm saying is that nouns are fundamental to how we think. The
> > claim that "entities are illusionary" is high on my list of signals
> > that sets off the crank-o-meter.
>
> Do me a favor, do no discuss crankism or trollism. It is a sterile
> question hurting cdt very much. Talking about it is encouraging it.
> Simply ignore comments such as these.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes that was a failing on my part. It is better to take the higher road. Received on Mon Feb 19 2007 - 10:21:37 CET

Original text of this message