>And another thing: Why do you keep changing my name to "The Nametag" in my
>suppose quotes. Everyone is now aware of your little manipulation , what's
>the point in continuing to do it?
>
>I never changed your name. Don't accuse people unless you are sure of your
>facts!
I found four messages from Richard where he or his computer have changed
"Nateman" to "Nametag". I am really interested what Richard has to say
about it. A good Flip answer would be: "what a waste of time, Tad, don't
you have better things to do?"
(1) =======
From: Richard Brodie <RBrodie@brodietech.com>
To: "'virus@lucifer.com'" <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: I have returned
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:03:01 -0700
( I didn't finish reading it because
> I found it silly and boring , but the part about the city built with
sand that poked fun at Mecca I found amusing ) One can certainly
> appeal to someone's emotions rather than their mind. It certainly worked
for Bill Clinton. A prime example of why logic rather than
> feelings should guide peoples choices. The Nametag
(2) =======
From: Richard Brodie <RBrodie@brodietech.com>
To: "'virus@lucifer.com'" <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: I have returned
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:59:20 -0700
> Ultimately it is ones philosophy of life , explicit or implicit ,which
guides
> one's choices. Which is why philosophy is the most important subject a
person
> can learn!The Nametag
(3) =======
From: Richard Brodie <RBrodie@brodietech.com>
To: "'virus@lucifer.com'" <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: MS Weapon
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:54:08 -0700
> Others may not understand the symbols used but they do represent
something real even if
> only one person understands them. Your argument does not challenge the
basic point I'm
> trying to make: that universals exist in reality and are not just
abstractions of the
> mindThe Nametag.
(4)========
From: Richard Brodie <RBrodie@brodietech.com>
To: "'virus@lucifer.com'" <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: MS Weapon
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:48:06 -0700
> A good map will guide you over unfamiliar territory. One may only be a
> symbolic representation of the other but if the territory did not have a
> certain state or "pattern" no map would ever see you on your way. In
philosophy
> this is know as the problem of universals. If universals did not in fact
exist
> independent of anyone's thoughts , why then does a good map work as well
as it
> does?
> The Nametag
Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159