Re: 137
- From: j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins)
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:42:15 +1000
Tiny Bulcher <alycidon9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:44 am, catshark <catsh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:31:59 +1000, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins)
wrote:
Michael Siemon <mlsie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <Xns99EDC25067F61mail125797pop...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ferrous Patella <FerrousPate...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am told it should be self-explanatory. Just checking
Of course it is -- proof by mathematical induction.
That doesn't count.
Perhaps not ... but it does add up. But let's not argue, lest our opponents
divide and conquer.
They are multiplying all the time. But even so they are still only a
small fraction of society.
We can oppose them, but only in baby steps. We can follow the strategy
of Inconvenient Truth - I love the way Al Gore hit 'em.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: WHERE DID "THEY" COME FROM ? & @ # !
- Next by Date: Re: What the Earliest Ancient Greek Philosophers Knew About The Meaning
- Previous by thread: Re: 137
- Next by thread: Re: 137
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
