🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gc9op$q7i$1@usenet53.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> In article <gall-0604981141300001@usrts2m3.uwinnipeg.ca>,
gall@uwinnipeg.ca (Norman Gall) wrote:

> >Yawn.  You should really try to get a grip on the concept of relevance.

> _You_ get a handle on it. The concept of  *relevance* includes the attribute 
> *relevant  _to _whom_* The situation right now is that it is not the owner of 
> the property who gets to decide what is relevant, but a third--or 20 
> millionth) third party.

You are confusing logical relevance which contains a consideration for the
context and purpose of the argument (which is independent of persons) and
personal relevance (otherwise known as personal stake or interest) which
is as you say it is. My arguments are examining the goodness of the
arguments and as such the concept of logical relevance is relevant. My
personal stake in the matter is no more than what any citizen has.

> That--among other things--is a real problem. You don't see it at present 
> because it is not your ox that is being gored. 

See above.

> It would be better if you stopped the yawning and paid more attention; a 
> philosophy prof (no ad hominem intended) should have a (better than you 
> illustrate so far) handle on the relationship of
attributes/characteristics to 
> concepts.

You haven't demonstrated that anything I've said indicates that I don't.
If anything, you demonstrate (see above) a rather simplistic notion of
most argumentative terms.

Norm Gall

-- 
Windows 95 (win-DOH-z), n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical
shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally
coded for a 4 bit microprocessor which was written by a 2 bit company
that can't stand 1 bit of competition.