> >analysis instead of pronouncements about the "sensibility" you seem to
> >assume you have and others don't. On just what do you base your
> >transcendent insights and your boredom at encountering all the sad,
> >empty souls who lack it?
> As straight lines go, this is about as broad and straight as they
> come. Let's say, hypothetically, that Peter has the sort of metaphysical
> sensibility that he says is at work in 4Q, and that you don't. Again,
> hypothetically then, what explanation, in that case, would you be
> capable of understanding?
Let's say, hypothetically, that I have some sort of metaphysical handle on the fact that
Ken, CR and Peter invariably posit a load of absolute crap that does not stand up to (and
effectively refuses to stand up to) any kind of critical analysis, and that they're for
some reason unable to see that, however diligently anybody might respond to their
nonsense. Hypothetically, then, what can possibly be done?
I think Carrol has previously identified the answer: stop reading the drivel; killfile it,
ignore it, rise above it, refuse to dignify it with a response.