1 Step at a Time

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> At 04:32 PM 10/4/97 -0400, JAlw@aol.com wrote:

> >I'll cut this argument short.  There were two more parts to go.  One for

> >Mark, then an argument which short-circuits the false notion that the two

> >statements are in contradiction.  I'll present them if anyone really wants

>>to see them.

> 

> TILL

> I'd like to see them.  Some members of the list may not know this, but I

> believe that Mr. Alward teaches philosophy at a university in California.

>  >>

>

>ALWARD

>The first argument presented (snipped above) is independent of the second

>two.  If the first can be rebutted, I won't bother presenting the second and

>third parts.  May I first hear your response to my first comments?  


TILL
Okay, I'll respond to your other argument.  You compared the biblical
statements to someone who might say, "If you aren't part of the solution,
then you are part of the problem," but I too would consider this a logical
absurdity.  <snip>


ALWARD
More to the point, does it not convey well the attitudes and beliefs of the
speaker?

• Previous message: Till is too strict!
• Next message: 1 Step at a Time
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]