cruniks you are barking up the wrong tree, but keep barking anyway because you are providing a valuable case in point. There are factors within this process that you have not even considered.
As usual your tucowsian arguments are ineffectual and highly assumptive:
Hand must be pretty stupid if . . .
Inco apparently has the same racist views of newfoundlanders . .
As I once pointed out to you, and I repeat, your argumentations about purely conceptual matters can only place the broadest constraints on issues concerning empirical fact (assuming that some version of the analytic/ synthetic distinction can be defended so as to make it meaningful to continue distinguishing between matters empirical and conceptual; roughly, then, a statement is analytic just in case its truth is determined solely by virtue of the meanings of the words used to express the statement).
As I said before, when it is a matter of asking what is possible with regards the issues surrounding Voisey's Bay, my only properly analytical tools are logic and semantic analysis, which means that I am essentially restricted to asking whether the scenario's you suggest are meaningful and coherent, and hence logically possible. To proceed any further, I must draw on whatever I take to be synthetic or empirical truths, the production and assessment of which is hardly the exclusive province of your own unintelligent expressions, especially when it is a matter of the mining in Canada. As commentator, you possess no privileged critical capacity and are in no position to deliver a decisive judgement with regards to myself, Voisey's Bay, Labrador, Newfoundland, Canada, or much of anything else. Are you painfully aware of this? I imparted all of this to you once before!! |
