Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (35061)	4/17/1999 11:40:00 AM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Allow me to stick my toes into the furnace here. (mmmm ... warm) I presume greatly here, but what I see in the material just cited is a legitimate invocation of the Razor without all the logical gymnastics you charge. Here's the hinge. Sidney originally stated while the disbeliever is basing [his] assumption upon a lack of knowledge of God. I see our feline fellow as using the razor to discard the bit about not knowing God. The disbeliever bases his assumption on entirely different things. A presumption about God suggested in the conscious lack of knowledge indicated above is an unnecessary wrinkle that sticks up enough to get shaven. How'm I doing? Ceterum censeo Chuzzlewit is innocent of your charge of weasel-nature. He would be too busy locked in eternal chase of self to mind the keyboard.

To: jbe who wrote (35061)	4/17/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Dear Joan, I will "weasel" out of this criticism by pointing out that there several antecedent discussions which were not cited. That's one of the problems we have here -- multithreaded conversations. Perhaps I have injected a meaning in Sidney's words in this and previous posts that he did not intend, but I inferred that Sidney invokes supernatural explanations and "proofs". One example: exchange2000.com So my sin may boil down to making an unwarranted inference if the basis were simply one post. But there were several which lead me to believe that Sidney believes in supernatural interventions. If this constitutes weaseling, I must plead guilty with explanation. But actually, in the larger context, I think I was correct. Yes, you are correct. My mind was not in gear when I should have used phenomenon instead of phenomena. I throw myself at your feet and beg mercy in this forum, for surely between you and Edwarda I would not get it on the grammar thread). Jousting with a woman who is simultaneously a grammarian and a logician is simply too much for me. The only thing worse would be if she had legal train too. TTFN, CTC