Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!cliffs.rs.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2p020.49q@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <850875571snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbE2nox6.M7s@netcom.com> <851045535snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:22:47 GMT
Lines: 15
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50200 comp.ai:42922

In article <851045535snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> BUT THAT HUMAN FALLIBILITY IS AT THE BASIS OF MY WHOLE ARGUMENT

The same human fallibility explains your faulty reasoning that leads you from
the correct claim of human fallibility to several false conclusions.

>I  don't  know  about  "deeply", but you  seem  to  have  a  more 
>fundamental  problem in that you can't even read what's right  in 
>front of your eyes.

That claim is another demonstration of the depth of your problem.
-- 
<J Q B>

