Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: for special ed retards
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 12:59:56 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> the book can be used as evidence.
>
> Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
> of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
> logically make both fiction.
Example so it is more clear.
Here is an item.
It is a tennis ball.
The ball is yellow.
Now allow someone to introduce another item.
Here is a door.
It is yellow.
Therefore the door is round.
Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
While discussing an item, introduce another item to discuss, and then
proclaim that by them introducing the item into discussion that that
somehow magically confers a property not under discussion or
characteristic not under discussion to the first item.
Again:
A yellow tennis ball.
A yellow door.
Equates to door being round.
> If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> the book can be used as evidence.
>
> Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
> of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
> logically make both fiction.
Example so it is more clear.
Here is an item.
It is a tennis ball.
The ball is yellow.
Now allow someone to introduce another item.
Here is a door.
It is yellow.
Therefore the door is round.
Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
While discussing an item, introduce another item to discuss, and then
proclaim that by them introducing the item into discussion that that
somehow magically confers a property not under discussion or
characteristic not under discussion to the first item.
Again:
A yellow tennis ball.
A yellow door.
Equates to door being round.
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 1:24:58 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 9:59 AM, Mulligan wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan<yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>> the book can be used as evidence.
>>
>> Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
>> of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
>> logically make both fiction.
>
> Example so it is more clear.
>
> Here is an item.
>
> It is a tennis ball.
>
> The ball is yellow.
>
> Now allow someone to introduce another item.
>
> Here is a door.
>
> It is yellow.
>
> Therefore the door is round.
>
> Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
Yes, but we allow theists onto alt.atheism anyway.
> On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan<yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>> the book can be used as evidence.
>>
>> Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
>> of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
>> logically make both fiction.
>
> Example so it is more clear.
>
> Here is an item.
>
> It is a tennis ball.
>
> The ball is yellow.
>
> Now allow someone to introduce another item.
>
> Here is a door.
>
> It is yellow.
>
> Therefore the door is round.
>
> Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
>
> While discussing an item, introduce another item to discuss, and then
> proclaim that by them introducing the item into discussion that that
> somehow magically confers a property not under discussion or
> characteristic not under discussion to the first item.
>
> Again:
>
> A yellow tennis ball.
>
> A yellow door.
>
> Equates to door being round.
yellow M&Ms are round.
http://www.temptationcandy.com/store/images/Yellow%20Milk%20Chocolate%20M&Ms.jpg
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 1:27:54 PM2/8/12
to
trying to claim that another property is conferred not under
discussion and that it must be that now by logic is faulty logic, ace.
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 1:29:39 PM2/8/12
to
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 1:32:22 PM2/8/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is what happened in another thread, so I started a side thread so
it would be clear and plain.
Have you always been an idiot who does not understand what is going on
around you?
Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess
Feb 8, 2012, 1:32:14 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> > the book can be used as evidence.
Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> > the book can be used as evidence.
provide a written account of some evidence. All the books themselves
do is to provide a physical presentation medium for the contents
therein.
> > Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
> > of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
> > logically make both fiction.
considered, they were:
1. Alice in Wonderland
2. The Holy Bible
The context was that both of these are works of fiction (story
books). There was a later clarification that The Holy Bible is
actually a collection of many stories, so it differs in that manner
from Alice in Wonderland (which is one story).
> Example so it is more clear.
>
> Here is an item.
>
> It is a tennis ball.
>
> The ball is yellow.
>
> Now allow someone to introduce another item.
>
> Here is a door.
>
> It is yellow.
>
> Therefore the door is round.
>
> Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
book with a another book. The functional differences between tennis
balls and doors are very different. The functional differences
between books is essentially the same.
> While discussing an item, introduce another item to discuss, and then
> proclaim that by them introducing the item into discussion that that
> somehow magically confers a property not under discussion or
> characteristic not under discussion to the first item.
doors.
> Again:
>
> A yellow tennis ball.
>
> A yellow door.
>
> Equates to door being round.
typically an oblong shape, there are other options. For example, in
the movie The Lord Of The Rings, in a villiage known as The Shire, the
Hobbits have round doors on their homes -- these were real doors that
were built as part of the movie set for the actors to use while the
"cameras were rolling."
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Every time a child says "I don't believe in fairies" there is a
little fairy somewhere that falls down dead."
-- Peter Pan
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 1:49:13 PM2/8/12
to
> Have you always been an idiot who does not understand what is going on
> around you?
than you.
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:01:31 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
about that.
The book can be used as evidence of that.
>
> > > Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
> > > of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
> > > logically make both fiction.
>
> For those who might be curious about which books were being
> considered, they
Can look at the other thread.
>
>
>
>
> > Example so it is more clear.
>
> > Here is an item.
>
> > It is a tennis ball.
>
> > The ball is yellow.
>
> > Now allow someone to introduce another item.
>
> > Here is a door.
>
> > It is yellow.
>
> > Therefore the door is round.
>
> > Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
>
> Comparing a tennis ball with a door is very different from comparing a
> book with a another book.
I used an example, to demonstrate the faulty logic.
Deal with it.
> > While discussing an item, introduce another item to discuss, and then
> > proclaim that by them introducing the item into discussion that that
> > somehow magically confers a property not under discussion or
> > characteristic not under discussion to the first item.
>
> That's what you just did with your introduction of tennis balls and
> doors.
Do you know what an example is?
>
> > Again:
>
> > A yellow tennis ball.
>
> > A yellow door.
>
> > Equates to door being round.
>
> You didn't specify the shape of the door.
Bingo.
<fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>
> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> provide a written account of some evidence.
The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute
> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>
> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> provide a written account of some evidence.
about that.
The book can be used as evidence of that.
>
> > > Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
> > > of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
> > > logically make both fiction.
>
> For those who might be curious about which books were being
> considered, they
>
>
>
>
> > Example so it is more clear.
>
> > Here is an item.
>
> > It is a tennis ball.
>
> > The ball is yellow.
>
> > Now allow someone to introduce another item.
>
> > Here is a door.
>
> > It is yellow.
>
> > Therefore the door is round.
>
> > Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
>
> Comparing a tennis ball with a door is very different from comparing a
> book with a another book.
Deal with it.
> > While discussing an item, introduce another item to discuss, and then
> > proclaim that by them introducing the item into discussion that that
> > somehow magically confers a property not under discussion or
> > characteristic not under discussion to the first item.
>
> That's what you just did with your introduction of tennis balls and
> doors.
>
> > Again:
>
> > A yellow tennis ball.
>
> > A yellow door.
>
> > Equates to door being round.
>
> You didn't specify the shape of the door.
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:02:49 PM2/8/12
to
Someone introduced another item, and tried to add a characteristic to
that discussion that wasn't being discussed about the first item.
It most certainly did happen.
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:05:06 PM2/8/12
to
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:11:32 PM2/8/12
to
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:19:22 PM2/8/12
to
that the Bible is not a form of evidence to discuss reality, then YOU
introduced a characteristic to the discussion that wasn't being
discussed about the first time ("If we are discussing christianity [sic]
it is."). When you're pushed back to the subject, you asked, "Are you
now claiming the bible [sic] does not exist?"
Then "ancientofdays15" mentioned the story of Alice in Wonderland
existing but that isn't evidence of the existence Wonderland, the
Cheshire Cat, the red queen, and so on.
Reread the thread.
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:20:58 PM2/8/12
to
>
> I know about that. Reread the posted discussion thread. The claim was
> that the Bible is not a form of evidence to discuss reality
Which was not what was originally being discussed.
> I know about that. Reread the posted discussion thread. The claim was
> that the Bible is not a form of evidence to discuss reality
It was simply if the bible can be used as evidence, and I showed it
could if there was a dispute about what is in it.
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:24:59 PM2/8/12
to
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:27:45 PM2/8/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/86458765f1820e76?hl=en&dmode=source
> - Show quoted text -
> > >>>>>>> No. =A0The Bible is not a form of evidence
>
> > >>>>>> If we are discussing christianity it is.
>
> > >>>>> I thought we were discussing reality.
>
> > >>>> Are you now claiming the bible does not exist?
>
> > >> Alice in Wonderland exists too
>
> > > Then in a discussion about that between two people over what is in it=
,
> > > that is evidence.
>
> > The contents of the Bible and Alice in Wonderland are not in dispute.
>
> ...in the context
In the context of when discussing an item like a book, you go by what
is in the book.
That would be evidence in that discussion.
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:29:01 PM2/8/12
to
> That would be evidence in that discussion.
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:33:25 PM2/8/12
to
>
> >>>>>>>>>> No. =A0The Bible is not a form of evidence
>
> >>>>>>>>> If we are discussing christianity it is.
>
> >>>>>>>> I thought we were discussing reality.
>
> >>>>>>> Are you now claiming the bible does not exist?
>
> >>>>> Alice in Wonderland exists too
>
> >>>> Then in a discussion about that between two people over what is in it=
> > ,
> >>>> that is evidence.
>
> >>> The contents of the Bible and Alice in Wonderland are not in dispute.
>
> >> ...in the context
>
> > In the context of when discussing an item like a book, you go by what
> > is in the book.
>
> That's your change of subject.
NO YOU STUPID ASSHOLE THAT IS WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT INTO THE
> >>>>>>>>>> No. =A0The Bible is not a form of evidence
>
> >>>>>>>>> If we are discussing christianity it is.
>
> >>>>>>>> I thought we were discussing reality.
>
> >>>>>>> Are you now claiming the bible does not exist?
>
> >>>>> Alice in Wonderland exists too
>
> >>>> Then in a discussion about that between two people over what is in it=
> > ,
> >>>> that is evidence.
>
> >>> The contents of the Bible and Alice in Wonderland are not in dispute.
>
> >> ...in the context
>
> > In the context of when discussing an item like a book, you go by what
> > is in the book.
>
> That's your change of subject.
DISCUSSION BY ME AND YOU ADDED SOMETHING IN YOUR HEAD THAT WAS NOT
INTENDED BY ME AT ALL AND I IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED YOUR TROLLING
ATTEMPT YOU DUMB FUCKING RETARDED USENET WORTHLESS PIECE OF DOGSHIT
FUCKFACE TROLL DUMBFUCKING ASSHOLE STUPID PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT!
Harry F. Leopold
Feb 8, 2012, 2:36:50 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:32:14 -0600, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote
(in article
<149e9485-7db8-4f8f...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>>> the book can be used as evidence.
>
> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> provide a written account of some evidence. All the books themselves
> do is to provide a physical presentation medium for the contents
> therein.
>
>>> Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
>>> of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
>>> logically make both fiction.
>
> For those who might be curious about which books were being
> considered, they were:
>
> 1. Alice in Wonderland
> 2. The Holy Bible
>
> The context was that both of these are works of fiction (story
> books). There was a later clarification that The Holy Bible is
> actually a collection of many stories, so it differs in that manner
> from Alice in Wonderland (which is one story).
Replace Alice in Wonderland with A Thousand Nights and a Night (as translated
by Sir Richard Francis Burton.) Like the bible it is a whole bunch of stories
loosely tied together, in 12 volumes.
A much more interesting set of stories than the bible.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
(in article
<149e9485-7db8-4f8f...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>>> the book can be used as evidence.
>
> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> provide a written account of some evidence. All the books themselves
> do is to provide a physical presentation medium for the contents
> therein.
>
>>> Now just because there are 2 books being considered, and one is a book
>>> of fiction, and the other a book of religion, does not automatically
>>> logically make both fiction.
>
> For those who might be curious about which books were being
> considered, they were:
>
> 1. Alice in Wonderland
> 2. The Holy Bible
>
> The context was that both of these are works of fiction (story
> books). There was a later clarification that The Holy Bible is
> actually a collection of many stories, so it differs in that manner
> from Alice in Wonderland (which is one story).
by Sir Richard Francis Burton.) Like the bible it is a whole bunch of stories
loosely tied together, in 12 volumes.
A much more interesting set of stories than the bible.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:45:09 PM2/8/12
to
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:46:43 PM2/8/12
to
DanielSan
Feb 8, 2012, 2:53:31 PM2/8/12
to
Go outside.
Mulligan
Feb 8, 2012, 3:20:13 PM2/8/12
to
good as I have actual important relevant matters to address.
Thanks for conceding you little bitch!
Smiler
Feb 8, 2012, 9:35:51 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:01:31 -0800, Mulligan wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>>
>> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
>> provide a written account of some evidence.
>
> The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute about
> that.
There are words written in most books.
> On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>>
>> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
>> provide a written account of some evidence.
>
> The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute about
> that.
> The book can be used as evidence of that.
>
is NOT evidence that those words are, in any way, true or even meaningful.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Giga2
Feb 9, 2012, 3:43:56 AM2/9/12
to
"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.02.09....@JoeKing.com...
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:01:31 -0800, Mulligan wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
>> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>>> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>>>
>>> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
>>> provide a written account of some evidence.
>>
>> The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute about
>> that.
>
> There are words written in most books.
>
>> The book can be used as evidence of that.
>>
>
> Indeed. A book (with words in) is evidence for the existence of words. It
> is NOT evidence that those words are, in any way, true or even meaningful.
>
Surely words are by defintion 'meaningful'?
>
>> On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
>> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
>>> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>>>
>>> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
>>> provide a written account of some evidence.
>>
>> The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute about
>> that.
>
> There are words written in most books.
>
>> The book can be used as evidence of that.
>>
>
> Indeed. A book (with words in) is evidence for the existence of words. It
> is NOT evidence that those words are, in any way, true or even meaningful.
>
Giga2
Feb 9, 2012, 3:46:09 AM2/9/12
to
"Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess" <fidem....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:149e9485-7db8-4f8f...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
seen to contain immense wisdom by some.
Mulligan
Feb 9, 2012, 10:27:07 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 3:46 am, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess" <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:149e9485-7db8-4f8f...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> > > the book can be used as evidence.
> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> provide a written account of some evidence.
And a book is comprised of the things it contains therein.
> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the book,
> > > the book can be used as evidence.
> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
> provide a written account of some evidence.
Hence, the book can be utilized as evidence of what is inside it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Example so it is more clear.
> > Here is an item.
> > It is a tennis ball.
> > The ball is yellow.
> > Now allow someone to introduce another item.
> > Here is a door.
> > It is yellow.
> > Therefore the door is round.
> > Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
> Comparing a tennis ball with a door is very different from comparing a
> book with a another book. The functional differences between tennis
> balls and doors are very different. The functional differences
> between books is essentially the same.
But again that does not confer a property not being discussed, which
> > Here is an item.
> > It is a tennis ball.
> > The ball is yellow.
> > Now allow someone to introduce another item.
> > Here is a door.
> > It is yellow.
> > Therefore the door is round.
> > Now this is example of the logic of the trolling tactic they tried.
> Comparing a tennis ball with a door is very different from comparing a
> book with a another book. The functional differences between tennis
> balls and doors are very different. The functional differences
> between books is essentially the same.
was whether it can be used as evidence, which was the issue I was
addressing, and provided an example under which it could be.
I never explicitly stated it then conferred some other property to
it.
That existed solely in your heads.
Now, someone raised a point as follows:
A yellow M & M.
It is round.
There.
Bravo!
Kudos.
So let us see.
This must be like 3rd grade kiddie land.
What else is yellow and round?
The sun.
Then you can now conclude based upon that elementary logic, that all
yellow things are *gasp* round.
If I hit your M & M with a hammer, would it still be round?
If you ate the M & M, would it retain its roundness?
Get real.
Just because I show how the bible can be used as evidence, does in no
way reflect on its veracity outside of the fact of it settling a
religious dispute.
That issue was not being discussed or addressed by me in that thread.
That was my involvement on that sub issue, which is why I pulled a
side thread for it, lest I detract away from the bulk of the thread.
Smiler
Feb 9, 2012, 8:08:19 PM2/9/12
to
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Feb 9, 2012, 9:18:39 PM2/9/12
to
>
> It is round.
>
> There.
[snip -- philosophical-pseudo-scientific discourse]
> Just because I show how the bible can be used as evidence, does in no
> way reflect on its veracity outside of the fact of it settling a
> religious dispute.
In the context of settling a dispute about religion, I don't disagree,
> way reflect on its veracity outside of the fact of it settling a
> religious dispute.
but where the context is of settling a dispute based in an opposition
between religion and science "the bible" lacks impartiality and is, by
its very nature, defective for the purposes of resolving such a dispute.
> That issue was not being discussed or addressed by me in that thread.
>
> That was my involvement on that sub issue, which is why I pulled a
> side thread for it, lest I detract away from the bulk of the thread.
choice of topic is in the realm of ad hominems.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Benjamin Franklin
Giga2
Feb 10, 2012, 3:53:40 AM2/10/12
to
"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:43:56 +0000, Giga2 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2012.02.09....@JoeKing.com...
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:01:31 -0800, Mulligan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
>>>> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the
>>>>> > > book,
>>>>> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
>>>>> provide a written account of some evidence.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute
>>>> about
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> There are words written in most books.
>>>
>>>> The book can be used as evidence of that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. A book (with words in) is evidence for the existence of words.
>>> It
>>> is NOT evidence that those words are, in any way, true or even
>>> meaningful.
>>>
>>
>> Surely words are by defintion 'meaningful'?
>
> Individually, yes, but when compiled into sentences, not neccessarily.
Quite right.
>
>>
>> "Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2012.02.09....@JoeKing.com...
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:01:31 -0800, Mulligan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 1:32 pm, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
>>>> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 8, 9:59 am, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Feb 7, 3:14 pm, Mulligan <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > > If you have books, if there is a dispute about what is in the
>>>>> > > book,
>>>>> > > the book can be used as evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it would be the contents of the book that may be used to
>>>>> provide a written account of some evidence.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion is about what is written in the book, and a dispute
>>>> about
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> There are words written in most books.
>>>
>>>> The book can be used as evidence of that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. A book (with words in) is evidence for the existence of words.
>>> It
>>> is NOT evidence that those words are, in any way, true or even
>>> meaningful.
>>>
>>
>> Surely words are by defintion 'meaningful'?
>
> Individually, yes, but when compiled into sentences, not neccessarily.
Mulligan
Feb 10, 2012, 10:05:58 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9, 9:18 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
Since that was all I was discussing, have a nice day.
0 new messages