Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA03058 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 02:18:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c11e15$63174360$6f24f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <3B6C9D90.31034.163A1CD@localhost> Subject: Re: Strawman Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:15:58 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > You've conceded to a strawman argument.
> I wasn't giving up, as anyone who reads what I wrote after those words
> could readily tell. I NEVER give up when I am right,
Someday you should give up even when you're right.
> and if the
> issue is whether I AM or not, then there can be no doubt. The self
> DOES NOT have an independent existence; kill the brain and the
> self dies, This does not mean, however, that the self does not
> exist. Don''t back-pat for an audience until you deserve it, which
> you most assuredly do not, because they can tell it's a pretense.
You've lost me.
> > If we're not the world, then whatever we are is defined in contrast to
> > the world, that is, in relation to it.
> Are you really so oblivious that you don't recognize my original
> point, or are you cynically trying to take credit for it?
This comment is both hostile and paranoid.
I'd rather be oblivious than cynical, so I'll go with the first option,
thanks. Obliviosity certainly has its rewards, on occasion.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 06 2001 - 02:22:21 BST