Sounds like we unnerved a nerve.
Carrol Cox wrote:
>I haven't read this post, so I don't know whether or not it contains
>elements that can be the object of conversation. But I meant seriously
>my point in my last post that one ignores rather than argues with those
>who claim that we don't aim at and cannot or should not achieve shared
>common understanding of an utterance. From glancing at the first two of
>Peter's posts this a.m. it does not seem that he is going to acknowledge
>this necessary foundation for conversation. If he does, that fact will
>emerge from further posts by others, and then I will return to this
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.14/48 - Release Date: 7/13/2005