To: Havoc
Thanks for your concern. I'll go by what was "seen by our own eyes," as John the son of Zebedee said.
Falsities hardly disprove a truth, by their conflicting statements.
1,270 posted on
01/25/2004 3:08:37 PM PST by
unspun
(The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
To: unspun
When supposition is the basis for calling something truth, it is not truth, it is supposition. Whatever opposes it at that level nee not arise any higher than supposition in order to beg the level of believability. Any fact opposing said supposition would become the immoveable force by which said supposition could not pass into believeability; but, often does anyway through repeating the supposition as fact and ignoring opposing facts or suppositions. This is called fallacy. But the art of raising fallacy to be regarded as truth is the modality of philosophy and thusly termed sophistry. I realize that pees on your wheaties; but, that's not my problem.
1,271 posted on
01/25/2004 5:27:29 PM PST by
Havoc
("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson