Re: virus: Axioms
Dan Plante (danp@ampsc.com)
Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:27:22 -0800
At 03:19 PM 3/17/97 -0800, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>Tim wrote:
>>On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>>> Tim wrote:
>>> >Now, David, why can't other axioms/philosophies have validity as well.
>>> >Validity isn't a limited resource. It doesn't decrease Objectivism for
>>> >other systems to be as valid, to other individuals with other axioms.
>>>
>>> What *are* the other axioms? Can we put them together and compare?
>>
>>Axiom One: Axiomatic systems are limiting and imprecise.
>>Axiom Two: See axiom #1
>
>Great start. Here is another good axiom to try:
>
>Axiom W: Words are limiting and imprecise.
>
>Let's implement it:
>
>asd dfgdf fgkj klllgf dfhgsdfg dfgf gdfgf uck u ggo
>Fddd aaa ddd bhgjt m,,,\ qwe poi lkjasd .
>
>The quality of our communication is almost the same :-)
>
>Do you think, Tim, your axioms will "do us any good" or "is this just
>pissing in the wind?"
Succinctly put. After recently catching up on a backlog of 700+ posts
(don't you guys ever sleep?), I found very few worth mention, except
maybe the article about the male and female student who write a story
together. I haven't laughed so hard in over a year. Thanx to whoever.
Dan