Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/1:39 PM
?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/1:29 PM
Pardon me, I'm doing two things at once - some mending with needle and thread as my grandmother taught, and arguing about the entrance of propositions into a minds and inhibitions to such entrances. If I mix the two you will try to understand. Somewhere in the process I seem to have lost where I said the thing you claim that I said.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/1:19 PM
To be open minded is, as you say yourself, to be willing to argue that that which you hold to be true is wrong, thereby being willing to change your beliefs. That's the tizzy I am in. And saying I am in a tizzy is another platitude.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/1:10 PM
No. But to determine the falsity of a proposition requires it to be considered, which requires a mind open to considering it.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/12:54 PM
Vague platitude: "This is extremely dim. Surely you can see why." Vague platitude: "a use of counter-example to prove" Vague platitude: "queen of vague platitudes" Vague platitude: "how ridiculous your claim"
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/12:50 PM
Allow me to repeat since you did not get it. Anyone who says "only thickies . . ." is closed minded on the issue of thickies by definition. I claim to be less closed minded than that.
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	31-Mar-05/3:39 PM
The fact that you claim to know one of my needs shows how closed minded you are.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	31-Mar-05/3:37 PM
As one who is less open minded than I, you, (not we) have proved nothing.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	31-Mar-05/3:35 PM
Anyone who says "only thickies . . ." is closed minded on the issue of thickies by definition.
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	31-Mar-05/10:59 AM
That's what Plato is saying because he believs in God, and I agree with him from that perspective. Edpeterson is asking whether God is responsible for an act when different people view it as good and evil. It is one of the reasons I think God must be responsible for both good and evil.
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	31-Mar-05/7:08 AM
Hint: My answer contained the word "yes."
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	31-Mar-05/7:06 AM
I had a long, thoughtful answer written, hit "Submet" and it was gone because I was not logged in. It doesn't matter, just respond to what you think said.
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	31-Mar-05/7:04 AM
Again, a fine straw man.
Re: a comment on stab in the dark by not_a_philosopher	31-Mar-05/7:01 AM
You assume that anyone who says something halfway reasonable has heard it somewhere. We believe waht we are driven to believe, and seldom change for logical persuasion.
Re: a comment on The Symbol by Dovina	31-Mar-05/6:55 AM
How are we to continue if you cannot see thourgh a grammatical error in a comment and address the comment rather than the grammar? Grammar is expected is poems, not in comments.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	31-Mar-05/6:52 AM
Go ahead and shoot, crack addict. The answer is still NONE! You can't get it through your head that I can actually see both sides of this issue and can relate to both sides. You always assume I have a position when most of the time I don't. It's a way I have of sorting through issues. It's part of being that thing you hate called open-minded
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	30-Mar-05/10:49 AM
It doesn't? I hadn't noticed.
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	30-Mar-05/10:42 AM
If a man thinks God is responsible for evil, then that man's opinion of God is suicidal, ruinous.
Re: a comment on Make Music in Your Heart by Dovina	30-Mar-05/10:31 AM
I don't wear bloomers.
Re: a comment on Make Music in Your Heart by Dovina	30-Mar-05/10:31 AM
By not reading them, you make yourself an able commentor.