From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber Tue Feb 11 15:24:42 EST 1992
Article 3506 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3506 sci.philosophy.tech:2055
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber
>From: silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: begging the question
Message-ID: <kp0ccuINNjjc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 5 Feb 92 18:49:02 GMT
References: <1992Feb3.025904.19668@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1992Feb4.163434.8471@husc3.harvard.edu> <kou7j3INNaqa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Feb5.005652.8488@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: orfeo

In article <1992Feb5.005652.8488@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

 ES:
 If everything
 that MZ maintains is .true. , what discursive and/or analytical path
 is left vis a vis "thought, consciousness, and reference"?  Is there
 only exegesis and transcendental mimesis, then?

MZ:
You have but two choices: either go
completely gaga dada, or try to make a cursory effort to understand the
subject of this discussion before you write again...

 Mikhail, you make your vapid exhortations, I'll make mine, however,
 if you would like to ANSWER the question, feel free to do so:
 You've posted quite a bit about what you think is NOT a good theory
 of reference, but I asked you effectively, what is YOUR theory of 
 reference?   Disdain and pejoratives do not an answer make, but feel
 free to excoriate us more, instead of describing your own theory of
 reference.


