RE: virus: C of V: Another Religion

Dave Pape (
Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:00:23 GMT

At 13:19 02/02/97 -0600, Ken wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Richard Brodie wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>> >I can't see myself contributing further to this thread. Unless someone
>> >has a rebuttal that isn't logically inconsistent, a counter-proof that
>> >isn't self-referential, self refuting or semantically imprecise, then
>> >I'd love to see it die an ignoble death :-)
>> A rebuttal of WHAT? You guys are saying you have some definitions of
>> existence, consciousness, and reality that are irrefutable and
>> self-evident. Well isn't that nice. And excuse me if I get on with my
>> life and ignore your little cult of consistency. Consistency has gotten
>> me into more trouble...
>*Especially* consistency without content?

I posted earlier about "pure logic" and was rebuffed because of course pure
logic means logic without thought. Well what I actually meant by "pure
logic" was people ensuring that 100% of what they said was formally
logically consistent with the rest of what they said. My problem with David
R's axioms was that they were consistent, but got no-one anywhere. That's
consistency without content: perfect (perhaps) -ly consistent, but hollow,

Dave Pape
The memetic equivalent of a G3 bullpup-design assault rifle blowing a full
clip at my opponent. (Alex Williams 1996)

Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1HN