Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Wed, 10 May 1995 01:27:53 GMT
In article <>, Patti Rebecca King (prk0001@jove.acs.unt.edu) writes:
>
>There arent any cats that are dogs..so "No cats are dogs."
>does that help?
>maybe i missed something here.....:)
If you people are merely announcing to the world that cats are not
dogs, why not just do so? Such a statement stands quite simply and
unambiguously on its own merits, although it can hardly be rated as a
hot news item surely.
On the other hand, there is nothing complicated about the issue we
have here at hand, beyond your collectively egregious incompetence in
the deployment of your own language.
Of course there aren't any cats that are dogs. Were cats dogs surely
we would in fact call them dogs, wouldn't we; the question of whether
they might actually be cats simply never arising (except among these
totally gonked American academics rambling on and on in their silly
attempts to explain the whole universe).
The "special sense" of said physicists not at all withstanding, in
_plain common sense_ we could then reliably assert that no dogs are
dogs, isn't that so?
Except that we are not referring to cats and dogs here at all. Nor to
protons and electrons either, for that matter.
We are talking about nothing, yes?.
The fact remains in all events, however you people chose to mince your
words, that nothing simply cannot be something.
|