virus: Logical beliefs

Reed Konsler (
Sat, 31 May 1997 13:48:22 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 12:51:03 -0600
From: David McFadzean <>

At 09:49 AM 30/05/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>I think that #1 and #4 are the standard senses in philosophical or
>other technical contexts, though the others are in common
>use. #2 and #3 are, IMHO, too vague for use in careful thinking.

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but you should realize that
you've just said that the principles of logic are too vague for
use in careful thinking. If that's right I think we'll just have to
agree to disagree on that point.

David McFadzean
Oh, come ON, David!
Talk about non-seqitors.
Has Richard been teaching you NLP "embedding" techniques?

Seriously, though. I was going to send a post saying almost
exactly the same thing that Robin did. You've chosen the
broadest definition (#2) and the most vague (#3). If you
mean "reasonable" why don't you say so?

As in:

"Well, you can believe in God, but that isn't reasonable."
"Well, you can beileve in God, but that isn't sane."


Reed Konsler