At 11:40 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Exactly what are your qualifications for pronouncing my lack of knowledge
>of "those larger things"?
None. I am taking your word for it.
>In any case, since the opening clause of my
>sentence is in the subjunctive, I have made no judgment at all about
>whether "those things" exist. My assertion is based on the lack of any
>way to make "larger things" (existing or not) ENTAIL a value beyond other
>things (whatever they might be).
This amounts to no better than the same logical contradiction as your
original putting of it. It's not I who has trouble understanding your
statements, Nancy, but you. Let me explain it for you. Only someone who
doesn't assent to "those larger things" could formulate the assertion that
you have. As you frequently do, you want it both ways: to define the
possible and lay down the rules for its use. (This, I think, is what got
Jacek's goat in his rude replies.) It is perhaps an impertinence of me to
point this out, but it is not a rant. Your need to control debate on
issues leads you often into these untenable positions. I mostly let them go
and watch with interest to see if anyone will respond to them for what they
are. But once in a while, lest anyone think that my silence is assent, I
point them out (in that respect, dancing to your tune). Infrequently as
that is and must be, I'm always hoping, of course, that you'll take over