🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:08:16 -0400, herbzet <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>YWH wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:23:53 -0400, herbzet <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >PD wrote:
>> >> On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
>> >> > > <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >> Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
>> >> > > >> can say anything publicly without making it true.
>> >> > > >That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
>> >> > > >first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
>> >> > > >those words, but to communicate.
>> >> > > To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
>> >> > > ~v~~
>> >> >
>> >> > Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
>> >> > the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
>> >> > language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.
>> >>
>> >> Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
>> >> doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
>> >> through a two line script:
>> >> 1  Prove what you say.
>> >> 2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]
>> >
>> >Nailed it.
>> >
>> >When asked to prove what _he_ says, his response is also simple:
>> >1. Obfuscate.
>> >2. Go to 1.
>> >
>> >Glad I've kill-filed him.
>> 
>> Thou shalt have no other god before me. Obviously Lester prefers
>> truth. But you really need to explain your understanding of  truth
>> which Lester obfuscates and you don't. Otherwise despite your faith
>> we're forced to conclude that the only significant difference between
>> you and Uncle Al is that Al is polite.
>> 
>> YWH
>> 
>> Thou shalt kill file all others before me.
>
>Your hoof-print is unmistakeable, Lester.

This is Y. W. House. Whyn't you go shuck some shellfish for sushi.