At 12:34 PM 3/17/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>Agreed. But which side is the most valuable changes from
Of course not. I don't think you read what I said, let alone
look for any truth in my message.
>context to context. Are you insisting that <reason> is most
>valuable in every context save nihlism?
>Really? I think this is your perception of it, not mine.
Why are you so quick to discount my perception?
>First, I can admit when I'm wrong...for instance, when
>KMO called me on the philosophy of science thing. I was
>bitching out of line, and he was right, not me. Jeez, David
>...do you want a confessional? I've been wrong so many
>times I've lost count. When you prick me do I not bleed?
Apparently not. Maybe KMO can make you bleed but I can't.
>Second, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm confronting them.
Nice euphemism.
>Third, I accept inconsistency in an upright way...I don't
>need to hide behind anything. I use rhetoric as a tool, as
>have you in making these negative and inappropriate
>associations to Level 3
>
>>I can certainly play your game. Do you think it will be fun?
>
>Is it?
For my answer you will have to listen to my silence.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/