analytical-indicant-theory at Yahoo! Groups

Re: On Subjects and Predicates

Jon Neivens — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:53:27 GMT

... Hi Joe, Yes, I'm fully aware of that difference. My interest though is in trying to work out what the difference consists in. This is why I don't think

Absolute Existence Joe's Black Cat

gevans613@... — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:56:31 GMT

The Black cat is. ... Joe: the most obvious difference is that ii) is a complete sentence whereas i) is just a fragment, a noun phrase, that might not ever

Re: On Subjects and Predicates

Joseph Polanik — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:15:35 GMT

... the most obvious difference is that ii) is a complete sentence whereas i) is just a fragment, a noun phrase, that might not ever get to be a subject. it

Re: On Subjects and Predicates

Jon Neivens — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:02:03 GMT

... Greetings to you Joe, Well, my idea here is remarkably simple really. Consider the difference the between the following: i) "The black cat" ii) "The cat is

Re: still banging the ol' BE drum

Jon Neivens — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:12:55 GMT

Hi Jud! Happy belated birthday! I couldn't believe it when you said you were 75! It's nice to see your intellectual bite hasn't diminished one jot. As has

WHAT GIVES WITH GIBT? PART TWO.

gevans613@... — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:38:57 GMT

Dear Georges, Below is Part Two of my comments on the interesting material you posted regarding the discussion. Any differences we have in these matters do

Re: [nominalism] For Those with an Interest in Axiomatic Systems

gevans613@... — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:28:36 GMT

Joe writes: it sounds like you are calling upon influential academics to come out of the closet as atheists and nominalists; but, I doubt that many would

There is, es gibt, il y a, yesh, hay, etc. (Jud et Al)

Joseph Polanik — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:10:37 GMT

... while the relation between language and ontology is likely to be both subtle and intricate, focusing on the simplistic choices you've given overlooks the

Re: [epistemology] "Quousque tandem" : Metanomski?

Antonio Rossin — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:51:38 GMT

... (ant) Please explain. I'm questioning you for your purpose. Is it that of a scientist, or that of a student of philosophic ontology? ... Please explain.

For Those with an Interest in Axiomatic Systems

Joseph Polanik — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:34:41 GMT

... it sounds like you are calling upon influential academics to come out of the closet as atheists and nominalists; but, I doubt that many would want to

For Georges - a Position Statement

gevans613@... — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:28:25 GMT

07/02/2010 _Zgmet@..._ (mailto:Zgmet@...) writes: Thank YOU, Larry. It's gratifying to see that fairness may overcome petty disagreements.

Emerging From The Closet

gevans613@... — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:29:31 GMT

In a message dated 07/02/2010 11:52:37 GMT Standard Time, jPolanik@... writes: ... so, ... your plan for combatting religiously motivated terrorism is

For Those with an Interest in Axiomatic Syst...

Joseph Polanik — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:29:31 GMT

... so, ... your plan for combatting religiously motivated terrorism is to teach terrorists to suspend logical thought during ontological discussions. is that

Re: [epistemology] "Quousque tandem" : Metanomski?

Georges Metanomski — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:17:04 GMT

, nominalism@yahoogroups.com analytical-indicant-theory@yahoogroups.com, Antonio: ... Georges set up a scientific theory of

There is, es gibt, il y a, yesh, hay, etc. (Jud et Al)

Georges Metanomski — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:01:31 GMT

Coaching me in improvising blues, Champion Jack, while playing, told me to close my eyes and to strike any mix of keys. From that he instantly forked to a