[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[John Carl]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

I got the sinking  Ron Kulp feeling that we are on
> different planets,
>



> John:
> > Ok.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe you're real flexible in your thinking.
> > I admit I skim sometimes because it does seem to me that you just
> > keep repeating the same incomprehensible formulations.
>
>
Bo:


>   You - the weak interpreters - insist that it must be
> "comprehensible", while the strong (SOL) interpreters don't care if it
> understood from SOM - it CAN'T be - but simply apply it and the strong
> (SOL) MOQ's delivers infallible results while the weak MOQ is good for
> nothing.
>
> Bodvar.
>
>

So you think my interpretation is "good for nothing"?.  Well I think yours
does nothing good.  So we're even.

Personally,  I think "good for nothing" is a great deal.

A steal, in fact!  Perhaps my christian underpinnings showing through, sort
of an "unearned grace" kinda deal.

Good formulation, Bo.  I'll keep it.

good for nothing goof,

John