From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 08:26:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 93267 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.9.2338d824 (17377) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:26:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9.2338d824.299bedb8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:26:32 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9.2338d824.299bedb8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_9.2338d824.299bedb8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2002 7:27:50 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > I think this is a problematic proposal, but it's going to look like nonsense > to you if you don't realize it's a novel rule of interpretation. > I'm painfully aware it is a novel rule of interpretation. But it is offered as flowing naturally from given rules and as being needed. My point is that neither of these claims is true in any obvious sense or in any that xorxes (and your today remarks) has succeeded in presenting. --part1_9.2338d824.299bedb8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2002 7:27:50 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


I think this is a problematic proposal, but it's going to look like nonsense
to you if you don't realize it's a novel rule of interpretation.


I'm painfully aware it is a novel rule of interpretation.  But it is offered as flowing naturally from given rules and as being needed.  My point is that neither of these claims is true in any obvious sense or in any that xorxes (and your today remarks) has succeeded in presenting. --part1_9.2338d824.299bedb8_boundary--