On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:00:59 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:52:29 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In article <email@example.com>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:33:51 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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".
Which you denied you said.
>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,
And Verge has given no evidence of being able to reason about truth.
> 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.
I've given the example of alternatives to absolute falseness which you cannot judge.
>> > 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.
Uh not really when you can't judge the hypothetical.