Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. What purpose does this notice serve?

And as to my reasons for asking "dog-on" what he thinks Chilton is "full of it", how about I'm just curious to hear why "dog-on" says what he says?

And is Aramaic primacy really what Chilton is on about?

In any case, I'm a little amused that a moderator of a List whose stated goal is "the rational discussion or debate of sometimes-contentious ideas" and that is supposed to be dedicated to the promotion "of rational thought as a better means (than is "boo"/yea!") to access truth", a moderator who has nominally taken on the responsibility of insuring that the List's mission is fulfilled, seems to think that a call to explain/justify "that sucks" remarks is inappropriate no matter what its cause or the motive behind it is.

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey: this is a discussion board, not a list. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for the basis behind someone's opinion, but it hardly makes for a discussion when you confine yourself to interrogating another member and refuse to add anything of substance.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of the validity of your assertion that I "confine myself" to what you say I do (I think my alter egos Pete and Pat Cleaver, or "no Robots, would disagree), how can a discussion of the value of "dog on's" reasons for "X is full of crap" proceed until he tells us what those reasons are?

And as to discussion not being a discussion unless and until an "interrogator"(??) states his or her position on a given matter, when was the last time you read The Euthyphro?

More importantly, are you really saying that one line pot shots like the one of "dog-on" that I responded to (or that Fenton Mulley makes), let alone that the particular one liner that he sent into this thread" , are actual, let alone substantial (and/or rational rather than emotive), contribution to threads?

If not, then I'm not the one you should be admonishing.

Jeffrey