argument from precedence for Matt

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

----------

> From: Jeff Epler <jepler@inetnebr.com>

> To: "Errancy List (E-mail)" <errancy@infidels.org>

> Subject: Re: argument from precedence for Matt

> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 10:13 AM

> 

> Phipps, John writes:

> > I'm not after some rigorous

> > jeff-eppleresque logic definition (which I do enjoy, but seldom

> > understand on the initial reading)

> 

> Do I really get this obtuse?  Oh well, as computer science folks say "if

> it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand."  Though if I

> could write things simply enough for the likes of Matt or Lenny to

> actually be able to respopnd to the content in a useful way, I would do

> so.

> 

> Perhaps I need a translator.

> 

> Jeff

>


Jeff, your posts are excellent - clear, well written and thought out, at
times witty or clever, but, certainly, never unclear.  (I am often
jealous!)  Questioning what you mean is just one more way for the
inerrantists on the list to postpone actually answering a question!

April (who doesn't always understand your tag lines, but enjoys the ones
she does!)

• Previous message: argument from precedence for Matt
• Next message: argument from precedence for Matt
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]