Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:11:53 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:10:38 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:50:18 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >
>> >> >--SNIP--
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Its a pity for your argument that Larry was not dealing directly
>with
>> >> >> languages. I ask you again: Have you ever heard of parametric
>> >> >> analysis?
>> >> >
>> >> >So, are you finally admitting that you agree with the most basic
>> >statement I
>> >> >have made regarding Larry's paper from the start, i.e. his conclusions
>> >are
>> >> >not supported by the work in his paper.
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Then you'd want to explain how his conclusions about the languages are
>> >supported by a paper in which Larry was not dealing with directly with
>> >languages.
>>
>> Read for comprehension. When I wrote:
>>
>>   "Its a pity for your argument that Larry was not dealing directly
>>    with languages. I ask you again: Have you ever heard of parametric
>>    analysis?"
>>
>>  ... I was not, as you asked " ...  finally admitting that you agree
>> with the most basic statement I have made regarding Larry's paper from
>> the start, i.e. his conclusions are not supported by the work in his
>> paper."  That is why I answered 'No'.
>
>If Larry didn't deal with the languages in his paper, then his conclusions
>about the languages are not supported by his paper.

You are welcome to that opinion.
>
>>
>>   --- rest snipped ----
>>
>> I'm losing patience with having to unravel knots in your wooly
>> thinking.
>
>Nobody has asked you to try to keep up.  It is clear that this discussion is
>way above your head.  You don't know what Larry has done, and you don't know
>anything about the basic subjects.  I'd be quite happy if you kept out of
>the discussions and left those of us who know something about the subjects
>get on with things.

You obviously still don't understand why, in my article to which you
are responding, I had to write the opening text to explain why I wrote
'No'.



Eric Stevens