[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
(I said only entertained Dan's model as acceptance that, whilst it clearly 
wasn't right, it was an indication that something was also not right with 
the original basic statement of the model - a holding
position, as I said in the sentence you quote.)

dmb says:
You think you are making subtle points and being sensitive about the 
contingency of human truths and I think you are merely confused. Its just a 
holding position you entertained even though you know its wrong as a way to 
indicate error in the orignal model? What? As I see it, that's just a 
face-saving load of confused equivocation. That's just you trying to have it 
both ways at the same time, as usual. Apparently, I don't want to let you 
get away with it this time.

_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page 
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701