(Vince Hart) wrote in message
. com...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Vince Hart says...
(Nick) wrote in message
.com...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Nick says...
Mr. Bachler,
With all due respect, I doubt that you have understood what
Vince Hart meant.

With all due respect, I probably did.

Mr. Bachler,
If Vince Hart believes that you have understood his meaning, then I
am willing to accept his judgment on the matter.

You pose a very interesting question Nick. Kevin's posts do not
seem to be responsive to my criticism of using Pascal's wager as a
foundation for faith. This might suggest that he really did not
understand what I meant. On the other hand, he did know exactly
where to snip my post in order to remove the part that most clearly
identified one particular flaw in Pascal's wager leaving a statement
of mine without sufficient context, which he then used to push the
discussion in an altogether different direction. Such precise
snipping suggests that he understood my meaning fairly well.

Such snipping is one of Kevin's standard tricks. He frequently
resorts to it when someone refutes one of his arguments. One of its
great virtues (for Kevin) is that it frequently annoys his opponent
into some sort of angry response, which allows Kevin to whine about
being attacked thereby further avoiding the issue.

Vince Hart

Sigh, Vince, if a trick, demonstrate it.

I might if I felt that anyone besides you actually doubted it.

Dear Mr. Hart,

I do not doubt that Kevin Bachler did what you have described.
But I doubt that Kevin Bachler would regard what he did as a 'trick'.

But as long as you are the only one, I don't see why I should waste my time
because the better the job I do in demonstrating it, the more likely it will
be that you will snip it.

"I tend to use language exactly." --Kevin Bachler (31 August 2003)
"I show a lot of respect for others..." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

Could you be implying that Kevin Bachler might be intellectually dishonest?

However, your demand for a demonstration is disingenuous. I have
already noted the judicious snipping you did in this very thread.

Oh, so you are asserting that Kevin Bachler is intellectually dishonest.

Generally, your use of the phrase "trick" indicates a lack of
understanding. I could easily imagine the following analogy....

You have a very active imagination.

My impression is that Kevin Bachler might prefer a more dignified term than a
'trick'. Perhaps it should be called a 'tactical device' (TD), which, in some
cases of escalating hostilities, could be called a 'tactical nuclear device'
(TND). :-)

'Thwackum held that if the end proposed was religious, it mattered not how
wicked were the means.'
--Henry Fielding (Tom Jones)

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message . com...

"I tend to use language exactly." --Kevin Bachler (31 August 2003)
"I show a lot of respect for others..." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)


Let me add a couple more of my favorites.

"[L]ogicians are careful with emotive content." --Kevin Bachler (14
September 2003)

"One thing I seem to do . . . is to look for the portions of agreement
we have. . . . Why not look for the common ground rather than try to
run down the other guy?" --Kevin Bachler (30 August 2003)

"One of the things I am very good at is making good arguments with
unique perspectives." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

Vince Hart

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
om...

"I tend to use language exactly." --Kevin Bachler (31 August 2003)
"I show a lot of respect for others..." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

Let me add a couple more of my favorites.

"[L]ogicians are careful with emotive content." --Kevin Bachler (14
September 2003)

"One thing I seem to do . . . is to look for the portions of agreement
we have. . . . Why not look for the common ground rather than try to
run down the other guy?" --Kevin Bachler (30 August 2003)

"One of the things I am very good at is making good arguments with
unique perspectives." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

Clearly a legend in his own mind.

StanB

(Vince Hart) wrote in message
. com...
(Nick) wrote in message
. com...
"I tend to use language exactly." --Kevin Bachler (31 August 2003)
"I show a lot of respect for others..." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

Let me add a couple more of my favorites.

Dear Mr. Hart,

By the way, you wrote about "add(ing) a *couple* more of (your) favorites",
and then you listed *three* statements.

Please be more careful "to use language exactly". What might Kevin Bachler
think if he did not already "show a lot of respect for" you? :-)

"[L]ogicians are careful with emotive content." --Kevin Bachler (14
September 2003)

"One thing I seem to do . . . is to look for the portions of agreement
we have. . . . Why not look for the common ground rather than try to
run down the other guy?" --Kevin Bachler (30 August 2003)

"One of the things I am very good at is making good arguments with
unique perspectives." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

"I like people who understand what one says to them, and also what one
doesn't say."
--Henry James (The Princess Casamassima)

--Nick

When I began to write in this thread, I had an open mind toward Kevin Bachler,
and so I gave him the benefit of the doubt after our initial disagreement here.
I have to say that now I have become quite disappointed by Kevin Bachler's
subsequent responses (or lack thereof), and I have lost much respect for him.

"I tend to use language exactly." --Kevin L. Bachler (31 August 2003)

Then I shall have no reservations about holding him to that high standard.
In this post, I point out several examples of how Kevin Bachler has distorted
what he wrote or what I wrote in order to support his changing position(s).

I have named this evidently characteristic kind of distortion, the "Bachler
Shift" (BS, after the "Doppler shift", with potential whining sound effects).

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Nick says...
Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours)
seem 'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers are
not well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in
philosophy.

I think your comment highly naive. Many of the people in this
thread are probably much better read than you anticipate. Real
life eventually intrudes to cause one to specialize in day to day
work. But I think several are familiar enough with classic
philosophy to get around.
Kevin L. Bachler

In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with
respect to "the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as
Mr. Bourbaki put it?

Since I did not claim that any of the posts to date would clearly
demonstrate that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.
What I said is that I suspect several of the posters are better read.

Yes, you did.

No, I did not. What I said was specific -- I claimed nothing about the
specific posts, I made a claim about the POSTERS.

No, sorry Kevin. You're either nearly illiterate, or you're
deliberately trolling.

Neither. Here is the quote, taken from directly above.
"Many of the people in this thread are probably much better read than you
anticipate. Real life eventually intrudes to cause one to specialize in day
to day work. But I think several are familiar enough with classic philosophy
to get around."

For the record, Kevin Bachler did *not* reproduce *his complete quote*,
"taken from directly above". Instead, Mr. Bachler *snipped his relevant first
sentence* ("I think your (my) comment highly naive."), which *established the
context* for the rest of his "quote, taken from directly above".

"Such snipping is one of Kevin's standard tricks."
--Vince Hart (4 October 2003, writing to me in this thread)

The comment address many of the people -- PEOPLE -- in this thread --
i.e. THE POSTERS -- are better read...etc. Not once does the quote refer
to anything they have written or posted in this thread.

On the contrary, Kevin Bachler's *complete original quote* (not his distortedly
snipped quote, which he prefers to cite now) *did* refer to *the posts in this
thread*, which is about what I wrote, which he criticised as "highly naive".

1) I wrote a statement about *the posts in this thread*.
2) Kevin Bachler wrote to me, "I think your comment highly naive...".
3) Kevin Bachler was expressing his judgment about *what I wrote*,
which was about *the posts in this thread*.
4) Hence, Kevin Bachler *did refer* to the posts in this thread.

You may have *intended* to make a claim about the POSTERS, but that is
NOT repeat NOT what you ACTUALLY CLAIMED.

Kevin Bachler actually made claims *both* about the posts and the posters.

What you ACTUALLY CLAIMED was that Bourbaki's having suggested that most of
most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem 'naive'
insofar as they might imply that their writers are not well-acquainted with
the relevant past discussions in philosophy, was "highly naive".

Mark Houlsby's statement (above) is accurate.

Try again. He made the comment that the arguments were naive -- NOT ME.

For the record, I did *not* write that "the arguments were naive";
I wrote that "*most* of the arguments advanced in this thread...*seem* 'naive'"
(and then I explained what I meant by 'naive').

"I tend to use language exactly." --Kevin Bachler

Evidently, Kevin Bachler does not always write exactly about what other
writers have written.

I suggested his COMMENT was naive insofar as the POSTERS were likely better
read than anticipated.

For the record, Kevin Bachler wrote:
"I think your comment highly naive. Many of the people in this thread are
*probably much better read* than you anticipate...."

"Probably *much* better read" was a stronger claim than "likely better read".

1) Did Kevin Bachler make his "suggestion" to me before or after he had read my
mind about what I "anticipated" about the posters' knowledge of philosophy?

2) Was Kevin Bachler's unqualified assertion to me, "I think your comment
highly naive", intended *only* as a "suggestion"? I doubt it.

3) If that were true, then why did Kevin Bachler not write a "suggestion" to
me like this, "Please consider the likelihood that many writers in this
thread could be better read in philosophy than you might expect"?

"I show a lot of respect for others." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

How? When? Where?

Here's EXACTLY what Mr. Bourbaki wrote:
'Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem 'naive'
insofar as they might imply that their writers are not well-acquainted with
the relevant past discussions in philosophy.'

Agreed. He refers to posts.

Kevin Bachler has admitted that I was writing about the posts in this thread.

Here's EXACTLY what you wrote:
'I think your comment highly naive.'\

I refer to his comment.

Yes, my comment was about the posts in this thread.

'Many of the people in this thread are probably much better read than you
anticipate. Real life eventually intrudes to cause one to specialize in
day to day work. But I think several are familiar enough with classic
philosophy to get around.'

I then referred to PEOPLE.

Yes, Kevin Bachler "then referred to people".

This placed SEVERAL BURDENS UPON YOU.

This places no burdens on me.

Does Kevin Bachler always believe in his self-evident "proofs by assertion"?

The first issue, however, is that you were incapable of reading the comments
and following them. Try again.

As far as I can tell, Mark Houlsby understood much better than Kevin Bachler
did about what I wrote. And I *know* what I had intended to mean.

Firstly, you made the rather rude and presumptious ASSERTION to
Mr. Bourbaki that, in your opinion, his comment is "highly naive".

It was neither rude nor presumptious.

Kevin Bachler's initial assertion to me was presumptuous and annoying.

Yet I wrote a conciliatory response to Bachler, giving him the benefit of the
doubt (which he had *not* given me), because I supposed that he might have
some *definite knowledge* that, for instance, at least several writers in
this thread have university degrees in philosophy.

Evidently, now Kevin Bachler has admitted that he had no such definite
knowledge to support that assertion. And some of Bachler's subsequent
assertions have seemed even more presumptuous and arrogant.

It was in response to his rather rude and presumptious assertion that the
posts were naive.

Evidently, Kevin L. Bachler has another of his normal "unique perspectives"
on the true meaning of "rude and presumptious (sic) assertion".

My statement was about "most of the arguments advanced in this thread",
making a *suggestion* (I wrote "might imply") that their writers were
"not well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy",
which was intended only to encourage those writers to become better
acquainted with those discussions before they wrote more in this thread.

Such a comment could only come from someone who has not dealt with and
listened to many of the posters here.

Kevin Bachler might well have more personal knowledge than I have of "many
of the posters here", but does he have any definite knowledge that many of
them have university degrees in philosophy?

Really?

Yes.

Kevin L. Bachler has spoken.

How, then, is it "highly naïve"?

Because it assumes a naivete of the posters which doesn't exist,

Does Kevin Bachler often admire his proofs by circular argument?

and which at the same time tends to elevate himself in a surprisingly naive
way.

"Elevate"? How lowly does Kevin Bachler presume that my class and educational
background must be? Perhaps I should take consolation in knowing that Bachler
was "neither rude nor presumptious (sic)" before I return to the coal mines.

We le goelcerth wen yn fflamio,
A thafodau tan yn bloeddio,
Ar i'r dewrion ddod I daro,
Unwaith eto'n un.
Gan fanllefau tywysogion
Llais gelynion, trwst arfogion,
A charlamiad y marchogion,
Craig ar craig a gryn!

The posters here include many people with advanced degrees, doctors,
lawyers, well educated professional people.

Contrary to what Kevin Bachler evidently has presumed to know about me and
my experiences, I already knew that "many people with advanced degrees, doctors,
lawyers, well educated professional people" do play chess (and may write in
chess newsgroups) because I have played chess with them.

Substantiate this. If you CAN'T substantiate this, then you're either
either illiterate, or a troll (possibly both).

Neither. Experience substantiates it. Sometimes it is unnecessary to count
the number of weeds in the backyard. It is sufficient to know that there are
many. The number of well-educated posters here, even though I may often
disagree with them, is fairly high. Experience teaches that rapidly.

Evidently, Kevin Bachler has presumed to know that I should have little or
no experience around "well-educated" people. Again, Kevin Bachler is wrong.
And most of the "many people with advanced degrees, doctors, lawyers, and
well-educated professional people" among my family and friends would readily
acknowledge that they do not have much knowledge of academic philosophy.

For instance, I know someone (J.D. Oxon) who read philosophy at the University
of Oxford. One person in his family was the president of the Royal Society;
another person is an eminent scholar of law. Sometimes he and I have discussed
the philosophical texts of Wittgenstein, yet we each acknowledge that our
discussions could seem 'naive' to an academic specialist on Wittgenstein.
One friend of mine is a classical scholar, who has written several books of
translations from Latin into English. He freely acknowledges that he would
tend to be 'naive' in most discussions about academic philosophy.

"I show a lot of respect for others." --Kevin Bachler (8 October 2003)

If I did not know that was an indubitable fact (KLB has spoken!), then I could
well believe that Kevin Bachler has been quite condescending.

Secondly, you stated: "Many of the people in this thread are probably much
better read than you anticipate.". This is possible, yet how can you be
*certain* about Mr. Bourbaki's estimation of the extent to which those
"Many" people in this thread are, or are not, well-read?
Have you read his mind?

No, I've seen his post.

Evidently, Kevin Bachler has "seen (my) post" without understanding it well.

It is highly likely that he is underestimating his collaborators.

Again, does Kevin Bachler evidently presume that I am "highly likely"
"underestimating" the writers in this thread because I supposedly lack
enough acquaintance with "well-educated" people?

Thirdly, you stated: "Real life eventually intrudes to cause one to
specialize in day to day work." Punctuation aside, this is reasonable,
but not relevant to our little discussion, here.

Of course it is relevant. What this means to me, is that you've failed
to see the point.

Was Kevin Bachler's "point" that it's another one of his "arguments with
*unique* (everyone else dissents) perspectives"?

Fourthly, you stated: "But I think several are familiar enough with
classic philosophy to get around.". This is a direct inference that
"Many" ("several") HAVE READ ENOUGH OF THE RELEVANT PAST DISCUSSIONS
IN PHILOSOPHY TO BE SUFFICIENTLY WELL-ACQUAINTED WITH THEM.

Why are you yelling? I know what I wrote.

"I know what I wrote" might well explain Kevin Bachler's motive for routinely
"judicious(ly) snipping" (to quote Vince Hart) what he has written earlier
when he supposedly refers back to it later.

Kevin Bachler wrote to Mark Houlsby:
Only YOU made a claim about the posts.

That statement is false: at least I "made a claim about the posts".

I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM, ILLITERATE.

Yes you did. Above. Here is the quote:
"In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with respect to
"the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as Mr. Bourbaki put it?"

I believe that Mark Houlsby was attempting to remind Kevin Bachler of
*my original* (not Mark Houlsby's independent) "claim about the posts".

You ask me to cite "specific examples posted". Your comment goes directly
to POSTS. My comment had nothing to do with the posts, as noted above.

Kevin Bachler's last statement, "my comment had nothing to do with the posts",
already has been confuted.

My comment dealt specifically with posters.

Kevin Bachler's distortedly snipped quote "dealt specifically with posters",
but his *complete original comment" *also* was about the posts.

What I did was to INVITE you (in the light of Mr. Hart's post) to CITE
examples in support of what seemed, and, frankly, STILL seems to be
UNSUPPORTED, RUDE HORSE****.

Is Mark Houlsby certain of what beast from which Kevin Bachler gets his stuff?

Uh, wrong. You clipped a key word. You asked me to cite specific examples
"POSTED". Nice try, Beaver. But that's pretty lame.

Here's what I wrote:
'In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with respect to
"the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as Mr. Bourbaki put it?'

And as I pointed out, I never commented on the posts.
I commented on the posters.

Kevin Bachler referred *both* to the posts and the posters.

This was intended to afford you an OPPORTUNITY to set the record
straight, and thereby to look LESS illiterate and rude than you did at
the time that I wrote the above. You FAILED to do this, so you STILL
*look* illiterate and rude.

Funny. I'm the illiterate one, yet the phrase that you wrote that
specifically uses the word "posts" doesn't refer to posts, yet the phrase
I wrote which never refers to "posts" does.

At least, Mark Houlsby knows the genitive case of 'it', which Kevin Bachler
evidently did not know earlier in this thread.

In *his* reply to Mr. Bourbaki, Mr. Hart, in stark contrast to your
response, described Mr. Bourbaki's post, and its relevance to YOUR
BEHAVIOUR, thus:

'You pose a very interesting question Nick. Kevin's posts do not seem
to be responsive to my criticism of using Pascal's wager as a
foundation for faith. This might suggest that he really did not
understand what I meant. On the other hand, he did know exactly where
to snip my post in order to remove the part that most clearly
identified one particular flaw in Pascal's wager leaving a statement
of mine without sufficient context, which he then used to push the
discussion in an altogether different direction. Such precise
snipping suggests that he understood my meaning fairly well.

Such snipping is one of Kevin's standard tricks. He frequently
resorts to it when someone refutes one of his arguments. One of its
great virtues (for Kevin) is that it frequently annoys his opponent
into some sort of angry response, which allows Kevin to whine about
being attacked thereby further avoiding the issue.

Vince Hart'

How is this relevant to what you said?

Other writers here have observed what Kevin Bachler tends to do.

(snipped)
Nick wrote to Mark Houlsby:
As far as I know, Kevin Bachler has failed to justify his criticism of
my comment.

My criticism was that the people in the thread are probably better read
than he gives them credit for. Certainly, his attitude conveys that.

For the record, Kevin Bachler wrote "probably *much* better read".

If Kevin L. Bachler were God, then He could be "certain" to know what I think.

"(I) was neither rude nor presumptious (sic)." --Kevin L. Bachler (about me)

Experience has taught me that several of the people here are well read.
Sometimes, experience is sufficient.

General experience may not be sufficient to establish a claimed specific
fact by Kevin Bachler: "Many" (or "several") writers in this thread are
well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in (academic) philosophy.

Bachler Shift detected: My original statement did *not* contend that every
writer in this thread could not be "well-read" in general; it *suggested*
(I wrote "might imply") only that *most* writers in this thread were not
"well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy", based
only on the evidence of "most arguments advanced in this thread".

Sigh. This has become boring, and a waste of my time.
Kevin L. Bachler

In conclusion, Kevin Bachler has made some arrogant unwarranted presumptions
about me without having any definite knowledge (beyond mere suspicion) to
support those presumptions.

'Lass die heil'gen Parabolen,
Lass die frommen Hypothesen--
Suche die verdammten Fragen
Ohne Umschweif uns zu loesen.'
--Heinrich Heine (Zum Lazarus)

--Nick

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in
message . com...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Nick says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...(to Kevin Bachler):
You really *can't* read, can you?

Not every post.

Evidently, Kevin L. Bachler has acknowledged that he is not omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then
1) Kevin L. Bachler is not God, or 2) God is not always truthful.

At least, however, I can actually read the ones I do read.
Kevin L. Bachler

Does Kevin Bachler believe in an ontological proof for the existence
of God? :-)

"How can we argue about God's power in the other stars from the laws
which he has given for our rule in this one?"
--Anthony Trollope (Barchester Towers)
--Nick

Does Nick believe in staying on the current topic?
Kevin L. Bachler

As far as I know, Kevin Bachler has written in this thread about his
beliefs in relation to the existence of God. So why should Kevin
Bachler imply that my question about whether or not he believes in
an 'ontological proof' must be off-topic?

Because the thread flows, and context changes from post to post.

Before now, I had never realised that "context" and "topic" are
interchangeable synonyms.

"Kevin arbitrarily defines words to have whatever meaning he needs them
to have in order to support his argument."
--Vince Hart (31 August 2003)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

Have you not realised that sometimes the "context changes from post to post"
on account of Kevin Bachler's "judicious snipping" (to quote Vince Hart)?

So might "Bachler's Scissors" be a worthy successor to "Ockham's Razor"? :-)

It's amazing how much we humble disciples can learn from our Messiah.

"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer."
--Voltaire (1768)

--Nick

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...(to Kevin Bachler):
So, what thou, in thy infinite wisdom, art saying, is that "context"
is an interchangeable synonym of... ummmm... "context". K.E.D.

No. What I am saying is that "context", in the sense that it means "The
circumstances in which an event occurs" was an entirely appropriate choice
for a phrase. The context of the thread had changed. Hope this helps.
Kevin L. Bachler

Maybe on Planet Kevin it helps, but not here on earth.

Dear Mr Houlsby,

So what might the atmosphere be like on "Planet Kevin"?
I was "just wondering", which should be "on topic" here, I hope. :-)

Bourbaki wishes to know how he is off-topic. You have clearly demonstrated
that "context" is an interchangeable synonym of "context" and that
*therefore* he is "off-context" (whatever the **** that means).
You have *yet* to demonstrate that he is off-topic.

"Kevin arbitrarily defines words to have whatever meaning he needs them to
have in order to support his argument....This practice makes true communication
difficult if not impossible."
--Vince Hart (31 August 2003)

'I never quarrel with actions. My one quarrel is with words.'
--Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

--Nick

..
"So might 'Bachler's Scissors' be a worthy successor to 'Ockham's Razor'?"


Occam's Razor is vastly over-rated.




"It's amazing how much we humble disciples can learn from our Messiah."


"Humility, along with curiosity, is the keystone of all learning." --
Nomorechess




"Kevin arbitrarily defines words to have whatever meaning he needs them to
have in order to support his argument."


What some of us may see as arbitrary, may well make sense only to the gods --
like eating ambrosia and nectar instead of potato chips and beer. After all,
who are WE to criticize THEM?


"Then Zeus opened his mouth and swallowed Metis, for it was prophecized that
her second child would overthrow him."

Sure -- why take chances?


(sung in B-flat)

"How to handle a woman? Mark me well, I will tell you, sir. The way to
handle a woman, is to...swallow her, swal-low her, swaaalow herrrr."

Even before Valentino, we had Zeus -- who could really sweep a woman off her
feet!

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
. ..
"Nick" wrote in message
"sandirhodes" wrote in message
OK folks, we're on!!
I, for one, have been waiting for this confrontation for months.
I knew it was only a matter of time. Let's get ready to rum-bllle!!!

You might be disappointed. Is your ticket refundable? :-)

I am asking for one small clarification, please. Are you implying that the
battle will be swift and decisive, or that it will be non-existant?
Thank you in advance for your response.

Please "reread what I wrote" (below). :-)

Kevin Bachler might enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but I don't intend
to argue with him about whether or not God exists or Christian beliefs are
true.

"The whole conduct of war is like the action of a complicated machine, with
an immense amount of friction, so that combinations which are easily made on
paper can only be carried into execution by very great exertions."
--Carl von Clausewitz (Vom Kriege)

My modest proposal is simply that some writers here could make better use
of their time if they would read more of 'the relevant past discussions in
philosophy' before they write more in this thread.

If Kevin Bachler really believes that most of the arguments advanced in this
thread have been comparable in quality to those presented at a symposium of
academic philosophers, then what more could I say?

On 9 September 2003, K.L. Gore ('KG') wrote to Kevin Bachler:
"It is apparent that you will not accept any interpretation of words that
do not match yours, despite the content of those words. It is impossible to
discuss rationally with such a person. So at this point I'll stop."

I also prefer not to prolong my visit to 'Planet Kevin'.

"I'll try a pagan friend, thought I, since Christian kindness has proved but
hollow courtesy."
--Herman Melville (Moby Dick)

--Nick

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
The bottom line is that like I said before, I will not stoop down to
your level and resort to name calling like you did above.--Lance Smith


I am adding this one to my book. The odds of it ever showing up in one of
"Nick the liar"'s vain self-advertisments are estimated to be one in
ten-bazillion.

Not being particularly rich, I will risk just one penny.
If I win, mail my penny (don't forget to affix the 35 cent stamp) to me in a
plain, brown envelope.
If I lose, I will have to make a long series of shipments, and I would advise
investors to go long on copper futures, as well as zinc! :-)--nomorechess

Now where were we, oh yep, you lost:

Lance Smith = 1 ten-bazillion
Nomorechess = 0

Now make your ten-bazillion shipments, investors would go long on
copper futures all right but only 1/4 Philippine copper, and of course
1/4 British silver. The other half is reserved for a better market.

I didn't write "The Vision of Elena Silves", "The High Flyer", and
"The Dancer Upstairs". Nick, who is 100% British, clamied to have
written these.

In a fact finding mission in some islands in Balboa's pond, not the
Atlantic as previously mentioned, I found out that Bobby is really a
dad!

Lance Smith