🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MARTINC.92Nov18221201@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:12:01 GMT
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?

|>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.

Sorry, but I completely fail to see what's so deep about your comment, I also fail
to see what it has to with " re-seeing silly paradoxes".

I thus consider my response to your flame as valid as ever before.

Klaus@NTR
-- 
    __o   
  _`\<,_  
 (*)/ (*) Claudio Caputti
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++^++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Free will - the result of chaotic amplification of quantum events in the brain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------