[MD] brief tangent with Steve

[Matt Kundert]

Dave said:
"Oh, I can see what you mean. I guess it could be taken as a false 
dilemma. I guess it does look like I framed the issue that way and 
apparently Matt agreed with you on that point. Sorry for the 
misunderstanding." Instead of an apology, I get abuse.

Matt:
I guess I don't feel very sorry for you, because we apparently are all 
hypersensitive.  I'm quite bored of it, but it's difficult to break out of 
when nothing ever changes.

Dave, you said in your recapitulation of events that you think should 
bring an apology from Steve, "I'm simply saying that one can deny 
correspondence AND the slogan."  That's, perhaps, where you are 
breeding misunderstanding.  Because if the slogan's purpose is to 
deny correspondence, then to deny the slogan is misleading.  The 
properties of substitution create this meaning: "I deny the slogan 
(which denies correspondence)".  It's a double negative.  I'm not 
trying to be legalistic, but we have to be precise because it is each 
other's intentions that are obscure to each other (e.g., you don't 
believe Rorty has compatible intentions with James on certain 
issues).  What would be less misleading is to say that you don't 
want to use the slogan (because there are other ways to deny 
correspondence).

Understanding this would also help move you to the point of 
understanding what Steve and I agree on, which is that we don't 
want to deny radical empiricism, we just don't want to use it.

It feels like the last week of posts have been pointless circles 
because you have the most abstruse way of signaling agreement.  
I've been trying to ascribe to you agreement on certain points, but 
your replies have been careful to avoid explicit agreement to the 
ascriptions.  At the level of confusion that is apparently permeating 
this discussion, such explicit acknowledgments have to be a necessary 
step in making sure everyone is on the same page.

Matt