At 07:42 PM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>No I am not saying it sets itself up as anything. You said it was a circular
>argument; I said it was not an argument at all.
No, I didn't say it was a circular argument, I just speculated that
someone else might. If you'd read a bit further, you'd have seen what I did
say about it. In any event, don't trouble yourself, as I'm reassured that
you assert it not to be circular and that like TSE, you can't really make
it out, in your case because it is too abstract. It does take the essential
form of the circular argument, but as you say, it is an assertion and an
argument can't be an assertion &etc., or is it that an assertion cannot be
an argument? Whatever, they're not very satisfying lines, are they? All
those unanswered questions sloughed off like that. Not very
edge-of-the-world of him, was it?