On 30 Jun 2003 06:25:07 GMT, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s4032484 at student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>More significantly - who *answered* the questions?
>>this, i believe is a good question. the fact that you have posted this website
>means that you are making an 'appeal to authority'- therefore, it is perfectly
>resonable to question the authority to which you appeal. i am my own authority
>on all matters which i consider and gauge the varacity of the explainations
>which are offered at this website to be of perfunctory stardard: i gauge these
>'explainations' to be utterly vacuous and incommensurable, framed in a
>theoretical framework which i couldnt possible accept. you, on the other hand,
>think differently, thats o.k., becuase this is your perogative.
>No it does not. It means an appeal to reason. Engage that.
>>>>>The author of the paper. Would what was said have anything at all to
>>do with who said it? And if so when did the topic change from what to
>>who and why would it ever get so lost?
>>>if thats the case then, and im inclined to emphatically agree with you here,
>then you must accept that i am an authority on the matter as is any other!
>therefore, if you are to confer significance to what someone says, you do so
>independently of who said it, you simply excersize your own judgment and make an
>apprasail concerning the 'truth' or 'falsehood' of what they say- so why not let
>us do the same thing? instead of *telling* us what to think?
>Contradiction! You insist you cannot reason without another person's
reason to aid you? I feel sorry for you. Your refusal to reason shows
no relevance to what was to be reasoned only you refusal.
Now either stop bickering about not understanding and try it or stop
reading. For heaven's sake... how much of your foot has to be lodged
in there before you realize you can't breath?