Re: "In itself": Worst. Argument. Ever.
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Re: "In itself": Worst. Argument. Ever.         


Author: Wanker
Date: Feb 1, 2007 06:54

On 31 Jan, 20:45, "-+JFalk+-" yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 6:07 am, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 30 Jan, 18:03, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>>> On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> On 30 Jan, 16:03, "Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Jan 30, 7:20 am, "1Z" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> A typically knockabout polemic form David Stove.
>
>>>>>>http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.htmlThatlinkwasentertaining!But it seemed more like a rant or cheer
>>>>> for one of two sports teams with no real refutations of "in itself."
>>>>> Perhaps we start at the beginning. It seemed like a bumper sticker
>>>>> mentality, "blank slate plasiticity, or die." Or what counter theory
>>>>> way he trying to defend? ...
Show full article (12.03Kb)
2 Comments
Re: "In itself": Worst. Argument. Ever.         


Author: -+JFalk+-
Date: Feb 1, 2007 15:55

On Feb 1, 7:54 am, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 20:45, "-+JFalk+-" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jan 31, 6:07 am, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> On 30 Jan, 18:03, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>>>> On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> On 30 Jan, 16:03, "Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 7:20 am, "1Z" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> A typically knockabout polemic form David Stove.
>
>>>>>>>http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.htmlThatlinkwasentertaining!Butit seemed more like a rant or cheer ...
Show full article (14.31Kb)
no comments
Re: "In itself": Worst. Argument. Ever.         


Author: tg
Date: Feb 2, 2007 04:00

On Feb 1, 9:54 am, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 20:45, "-+JFalk+-" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 31, 6:07 am, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> On 30 Jan, 18:03, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>>>> On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Wanker" hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> On 30 Jan, 16:03, "Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 7:20 am, "1Z" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> A typically knockabout polemic form David Stove.
>
>>>>>>>http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.htmlThatlinkwasentertaining!Butit seemed more like a rant or cheer
>>>>>> for one of two sports teams with no real refutations of "in itself."
>>>>>> Perhaps we start at the beginning. It seemed like a bumper sticker ...
Show full article (11.04Kb)
no comments

RELATED THREADS
SubjectArticles qty Group
Re: Creationist Argument: Argument by Undeclared Variabletalk.origins ·