🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov18.144719.24323@nntp.nta.no> klaus@hal.nta.no (Klaus Gaarder FNI) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.92Nov17151735@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   |> In article <1992Nov16.091653.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
   |> 
   |>    Can anyone explain why we use logic? Unfortunately, any logical arguments to
   |>    support logic, are unfortunately, invalid.
   |> 
   |> Because if you don't use logic we'll kill you.
   |> 
   |> (Can we start a group for bozos who want to propose dusty old paradoxes
   |> as if they were somehow something we hadn't all seen a thousand times
   |> before?  Something like alt.logic.stupid-tricks?)

   This kind of response is what you expect from the dogmatic only, and
   being dogmatic is a simple reason NOT to use logic. 

There's a difference between being dogmatic and being deep.  Assume for
purposes of argument only that I was being deep: what did I mean then?

   Also your response suggest you don't like to think too hard about
   what you're doing, and why you're doing it.  It must be the power of
   commercials: "Just Do It!"

Wrong: just tired of re-seeing silly paradoxes that were old hat when
Jesus was a teenybopper.

   Your kind of flame is simply pathetic.

Nope, you just didn't understand it.

--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T