From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue May 10 2005 - 16:06:46 BST
The fraudulent philosopher's refusal to provide primary textual
support and argument for his slanderous remarks is on record, for
anyone to see. This on-record refusal is itself primary textual
evidence of the fraudulent philosopher's fraudulence.
A careful reader will find on record no similar refusal on my part.
Therefore, my conclusions are not slanderous, but instead are derived
from argument and verifiable evidence. This is the difference
between philosophical inquiry and dogmatic slanderous assertion.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com On 10 May 2005 at 8:23, Platt Holden wrote: MSH slanders a conservative contributor, calling him . . . > a fraudulent philosopher Then in the single phrase, slanders him again while at the same time condemning him as a slanderer . . . > a dogmatist who pretends to be a philosopher, slandering holders of > divergent opinions yet refusing to bring primary textual support for > his slander The quality of such thinking I will leave to the reader to deduce. Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 10 2005 - 16:33:46 BST