🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:29:46 -0700 (PDT), R. Srinivasan
<sradhakr@in.ibm.com> said:
> On May 15, 10:55�pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:36:55 -0700 (PDT), R. Srinivasan
>> <sradh...@in.ibm.com> said:
>>
>> > ...  As long as NAFL is not acknowledged by the academic community,
>> > all discussions of "truth" are farcical. Dishonest wheeler-dealers
>> > do not even have the right to even utter the word "truth" and their
>> > dishonest and irrelelvant musings on this subject as best ignored.
>>
>> Just smile, nod, and back away slowly, folks...try not to look
>> frightened...that's it...that's it...slowly now...
>>
> Pathetic, timid response from an alleged philosopher. 

Lighten up, pally.  Your outburst above is simply ludicrous.  You may
well be on to something.  But to dismiss everything that has been done
on truth from Tarski to the present as "farcical" because your own work
has not received the attention you think it deserves is, well, a piece
of crankery of the highest order.  Don't take yourself so seriously.  

> NAFL is a new logic and provides, among other stuff, a new philosophy
> of truth. To pretend that NAFL does not exist, as philosphers have
> been doing for 6 years now, is shameful dishonesty. 

There are, perhaps, other explanations you might consider.