In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:32:14 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> >A good beginning discussion of the subject of mathematical definitions > >> >is in Suppes's 'Introduction To Logic'. But in order not to inhibit the > >> >metastasis of your own convictions, I recommmend that you not read such > >> >books. > >> > >> Well if there's one thing I detest more than assumptions of truth it's > >> metastasis of convictions when one is actually dealing instead with > >> demonstrations of truth. > > > >As Zick has not demonstrated any truths > > Neither have you, sport.
AS I am the one doubting the existence of any such things as absolute truths or absolute falsehoods, my lack of demonstrating the existence of any such thing supports my position.
As Zich is the one affirming their existence, his lack of demonstration tends to weaken his position.
> All we've dealt with so far is set theory as > a faith based institution of doddering ineptitude.
Zick has illustrated doddering ineptitude by his own performance, but that ineptitude has not been up much of anything else.