Re: Evidence for Big Bang Theory
Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Sat, 13 May 95 19:28:30 CST
In article <765@landmark.iinet.net.au> gil@landmark.iinet.net.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
> Ah, but I am up to your crud sophistry and headgames! If you keep this
> up Eric I will insist that you get off too!
>
No, Gil, we were not talking about the big bang. We were talking about
all kinds of silliness, and I thought that I might as well get in on it
too! Isn't that the mentality of this thread? Sophistry? Headgames?
I am a sincere man, and I have made sincere efforts to contribute.
I take exception to your claims.
Anyhow, we bring sense to our communications through our seperate cultures,
as we all well know, and I believe that your idea that "no cats are dogs"
makes no sense is a refusal to accept what it means to those who are
manipulating it as a proposition relevent to the Big Bang topic.
It made sense for a whole lot of us! Your resistance to empathize with
that process by which the rest of us find meaning in those words, as well
as relevence to the big bang is not what I would imagine an anthropologist
doing!
In fact, I didn't expect you to respond at all! I thought that the stupid
idea of posting simplistic Renn diagrams would be so absolutely absurd that
you would find it a humorous reaction to your equally stupid leniance with
the meaning of the "cats and dogs" argument.
So, I ask you, doesn't it always seem to come down to cats and dogs
going at it against each other?
-- Eric Nelson --
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee:
ENShook@Alpha1.csd.UWM.edu
Home:
Panopticon@Oubliette.com
|