🚀 go-pugleaf

don_quixote@mindless.com wrote:

> In article <87m3mm$9tm$1@newsgw8.odn.ne.jp>,
>   "John Sawdon" <aam23180@nyc.odn.ne.jp> wrote:
> > Dear Sir,
> > Forgive me for being a pedant,
>
> N if you'd've been a pendant
> you'd have found forgiveness on the spot.
> Who knows, we might've even gotten engaged
> (provided its was an expensiv enough pendant).
>
> > but what do you expect, this is
> > philosophy
> > after all. I quote:
> >
> > >Actually I've concocted no theories: All I have done is
> > >interpreted some observed facts.
> >
> > If your claims are not theory what are they doing in a philosophy news
> > group?
>
> My claims are facts, not theories! What... facts not good enough
> for you now? They have to be theories?

>
> (But notice that your "comments or objections" are not theories
> either. Yet here they are in a philosophy newsgroup (first
> explain yourself, and then ask explanations of the world).
>

Philosophy is about "comments or objections." Thus, facts are not
interesting, because one can't object to or comment on them. Theories are a
different story, though.