Re: SUO: Re: Thirdness
> Pierre,
>
> > Well, hello John, that's no theorem. Your having
> > stated a claim in an email doesn't turn the claim
> > into a theorem the next time you make the claim.
>
> Of course not. The theorem was proved over a century
> ago, but if you don't want to waste your time reading
> it, I don't want to waste my time typing it.
I was interested in arguments and proofs relating to your claims, not in
reiteration of these claims.
> > The examples you give (I mean the valid one, not
> > the obfuscating ones) are picked out from a domain
> > incorporating agents and agency. We're speaking
> > domain ontology.
>
> I think that agents such as people and computers
> are of sufficient interest to be valid topics
> for an SUO.
I think too, the point is that this is only a part of the SUO.
> But you can define the scope of
> what you want to do in any way you please.
I don't have the pretention of defining anything. I've just tried to approach
the PAR in a rational and scientific manner. It just took me too a long time to
accept the fact that I was too serious about this group when what we really
have here is but an immense pityful joke.
> I think it's time for us to stop wasting
> both our time in trying to communicate.
It's nice to finally reach this consensus. I stand relieved, you may have the
final word.
> John
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon, IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/