In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:52:29 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:33:51 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > > >> >If you are unable to provide any examples of what you say you mean, I > >> >take leave to doubt that you know what you mean, or that you mean > >> >anything at all. > >> > >> Who says I'm unable > > > >I did not say you could not, only that you have not. > > Nonsense. You said "unable". If you can't even recognize your own > words there's nothing to talk about.
I said "if you are unable".
If Zick cannot recognize the difference, perhaps he is the one who who has nothing to talk about.
So far Zick has given no evidence of being able to give any examples, so I will take leave to doubt that what he has been saying means anything at all.
> >> and why can't the general claim itself be > >> evaluated without exemplification? > > > >Because I have no idea what your "general claim" is claiming. > > That the alternative to absolute falseness in universal terms is > perforce universally true.
As you have given me no reason to suppose that there are any such things as 'absolute falseness' or 'universal truth', much less that you can provide instances of either, I have good reason to doubt you.
> > My impression is that agreeing that "alternatives to universal > >falseness would perforce be universally true" requires agreement on at > >least what "universal falseness" means and what "universal truth" means, > >and I have no referents for either. > > I can't see how you need to understand what either means in order to > evaluate the general proposition provided you understand that they're > alternatives to one another.
You claim them to be. But on what evidence? Until you provide evidence that at least one of them actually exists, there is nothing to discuss.