|
|
george wrote:
> Peter_Smith wrote:
> > Oh dear. Another sad rant.
>
> I am sad about the fact that you seem not to know
> a universally quantified variable when you see one,
> and I am even sadder that ranting is the only thing I
> can do about it.
>
> > And in this case an elementary failure to distinguish
>
> I *repeat*, go yourself.
You're a disgrace to sci.logic.
>
> > (i) metalinguistic schemata with "schematic variables"
>
> The prosecution rests. A schematic variable is a variable.
>
And what of it? Peter was offering metalinguistic schemata, not
"schematic variables".
<snip>
>
> And another thing:
> asking anybody to read a book (unless it is introductory) in this
> context is stupid. If you can't summarize the relevant
> article/argument
> FROM the book YOURSELF then you are not smart enough to be
> presuming to comment.
Bollocks. There could be many reasons why someone is not willing to
summarize the relevant article/argument. One would be it is
well-known. Another would be your attitude and your behaviour in this
forum.
|
|