|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: spinoza1111spinoza1111 Date: Mar 1, 2008 05:31
I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets to Sundry
Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
|
| |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FareyPeter Farey Date: Mar 1, 2008 08:27
"spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
> to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
are no alternative sets.
Unfortunately, you got it entirely the wrong way round,
since the only contributors 'in a position of power' here
are of course the Stratfordians. And, as I explained with
the several examples I offered, it is the Stratfordians
who apply "a single set of rules while pretending there
are no alternative sets."
Polysemy is at the very heart of why I think what I do,
for Pete's sake!
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: spinoza1111spinoza1111 Date: Mar 1, 2008 13:14
On Mar 2, 12:27Â am, "Peter Farey" prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
wrote:> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>> I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
>> to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>
> That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
> on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>
> Â Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
> Â in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
> Â thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
> Â on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
> Â are no alternative sets.
>
> Unfortunately, you got it entirely the wrong way round,
> since the only contributors 'in a position of power' here
> are of course the Stratfordians. And, as I explained with
> the several examples I offered, it is the Stratfordians ...
|
| Show full article (3.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ElizabethElizabeth Date: Mar 1, 2008 17:27
On Mar 1, 8:27 am, "Peter Farey" prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
wrote:> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>> I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
>> to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>
> That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
> on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>
> Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
> in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
> thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
> on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
> are no alternative sets.
>
> Unfortunately, you got it entirely the wrong way round,
> since the only contributors 'in a position of power' here
> are of course the Stratfordians. And, as I explained with
> the several examples I offered, it is the Stratfordians ...
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FareyPeter Farey Date: Mar 2, 2008 02:37
"spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>>
>> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>> I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
>> to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>>
>> That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
>> on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>>
>> Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
>> in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
>> thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
>> on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
>> are no alternative sets.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you got it entirely the wrong way round,
>> since the only contributors 'in a position of power' here ...
|
| Show full article (4.35Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Paul CrowleyPaul Crowley Date: Mar 2, 2008 05:42
"Peter Farey" prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fqe007$obe$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
[..]> 1) As in the case of the inscription on the monument, I
> show that it is not only *possible* to read it in a
> different way, but that the odds against that *poss-
> ibility* having happened by chance are so huge that
> it must have been done deliberately.
It is easy to explain anything in a way
which is possible. The issue is whether
or not it is reasonable. We might explain
(say) the assasination of JFK by pointing
to the positions of the moon and planets
at the time. The odds against the moon
and planets being in those positions at
any particular time will always be in the
order of billions to one against.
|
| Show full article (1.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: lackpuritylackpurity Date: Mar 2, 2008 23:08
On Mar 2, 4:37�am, "Peter Farey" prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
wrote:> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>
>>> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>>> I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
>>> to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>
>>> That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
>>> on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>
>>> Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
>>> in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
>>> thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
>>> on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
>>> are no alternative sets.
> ...
|
| Show full article (7.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter FareyPeter Farey Date: Mar 2, 2008 23:55
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> [..]
>> 1) As in the case of the inscription on the monument, I
>> show that it is not only *possible* to read it in a
>> different way, but that the odds against that *poss-
>> ibility* having happened by chance are so huge that
>> it must have been done deliberately.
>
> It is easy to explain anything in a way
> which is possible. The issue is whether
> or not it is reasonable.
What is tragic is that you are unable to enjoy - as the
rest of us do - the wonderful irony of you saying this.
|
| Show full article (3.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: spinoza1111spinoza1111 Date: Mar 2, 2008 23:59
On Mar 2, 6:37Â pm, "Peter Farey" prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
wrote:> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>
>>> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
>>> I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
>>> to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>
>>> That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
>>> on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>
>>> Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
>>> in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
>>> thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
>>> on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
>>> are no alternative sets.
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul CrowleyPaul Crowley Date: Mar 3, 2008 02:05
"Peter Farey" prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fqgasb$5as$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> 1) As in the case of the inscription on the monument, I
>>> show that it is not only *possible* to read it in a
>>> different way, but that the odds against that *poss-
>>> ibility* having happened by chance are so huge that
>>> it must have been done deliberately.
>>
>> It is easy to explain anything in a way
>> which is possible. The issue is whether
>> or not it is reasonable.
>
> What is tragic is that you are unable to enjoy - as the
> rest of us do - the wonderful irony of you saying this.
|
| Show full article (3.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
