~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 24 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it.
It isn't obvious that we DON"T agree. It was still a question. Actually, I rather fancied Bell and May's responses. To the extent we do disagree reflects in no way on the Truth, only in our abilities to determine what Truth is. Again, think of it as an archetype or reality not as a popularity contest.
That is unless you are attempting to claim absolute omnipotence on the point of determination.
Nope, not me. Hell, I don't even claim *partial* omnipotence. You really have to pay attention to those details. Why are you having so much trouble understanding the question mark?
Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument.
Thanks, but you got it wrong again. Yes, there was an indirect (and apparently valid) ad hominem, but apparently you do not know what a straw man is. For your edification, your out-of-left-field suggestion that my discussion of Truth represents some claim of omnipotence on my part is clearly a straw man (and an implied ad hominem, for good measure). S a n d y ...WHAT IS TRUTH? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~