|
|
> george wrote:
> > 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.
Peter Smith replied,
> > > And in this case an elementary failure to distinguish
to which I replied
> > I *repeat*, go yourself.
abo wrote:
> You're a disgrace to sci.logic.
Shit.
With all the crackpottery that comes through here,
you're going to call *me* a disgrace?
Your comment here is a disgrace to intelligent thought generally.
> > > (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".
DIPSHIT: Do you see the phrase above with "schematic variables"
in quotes? The FIRST of the two? That's PETER TALKING.
That's PETER HIMSELF alleging that HE HIMSELF IS USING
"metalinguistic schemata with "schematic variables"."
So until YOU get around to APOLOGIZING TO ME
for being TOO DAMN STUPID to see what THE PERSON
YOU were (incompetently) defending WAS EVEN SAYING,
YOU will remain disgraced.
Jeezus.
> > 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.
Of course, but it's not like any of them could be defensible.
> One would be it is well-known.
*I* perviously CONCEDED that. *I* said,
> > unless it is introductory.
> Another would be your attitude and your behaviour in this forum.
Shit. I am not the only one asking ANY question.
If the question is interesting then that OBVIOUSLY cannot
be affected by WHO last asked it. For you to imply otherwise
is not only disgraceful, it's embarrassing (to you).
|
|