[MD] Oops versus God ?

[Ian Glendinning]

Zzzzz OK one more time Platt

Difference if you prefer (I'm not trying to divorce anything from
anything, in fact I'm joining up dots). Just saying you ignore the
fact that "part of an explanation" is different from (not the same as)
"the explanation". That's all.

Ian

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Ian]
>> Your problem Platt is in seeing (actively choosing not to see) any
>> distinction between
>>
>> Being "part of an explanation".
>> And being "the explanation".
>> Reductionism at its greediest and most despicable.
>
> Your problem is in not showing
>
> How to divorce a necessary part of an explanation
> >From the explanation.
> A distinction without a difference at its most sophistic and shameful.
>
>> Explicit and fully acknowledged in my mail (and by all the actual
>> neo-Darwinian scientist / writers) and ignored by the ignorant
>> (naturally). The recommendation was to read the blogs of others, not
>> mine. I know you already hang on my every word ;-) why would I need to
>> send you there ?
>
> How can I read the blogs of others you recommend on your blog without
> reading your blog?
>
> Oh well . . .
>
> Platt
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>