Posted by Camper on 11/11/06 12:15

"Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:dO45h.8072$9v5.6861@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> --
> This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
>
> http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:45547afc$0$17686$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> Art Landy wrote:
>>> What a spicy thread! Can't resist putting in my two cents. The
>>> arguments seems to be the ususal "Subjectivists vs the Objectivists"
>>> type and both tend to adhere strongly to their positions. It is hard to
>>> convince a subjectivist that their experience is valid but flawed in the
>>> resulting conclusions. And itis hard to convince an Objectivists that
>>> the subjectivists aren't full of crap!
>>
>> I wish that were true. The single "subjectivist" here doesn't seem to be
>> able to support his position at all.
>>
>> I could easily quote you many of the arguments of the subjectivists, even
>> though I certainly fall more into the objectivist camp. The problem here
>> is that the original poster can't even put together a coherent discussion
>> of the topic. It appears that we are (as the saying goes) "engaging in a
>> battle of wits with an unarmed man".
>
> That's what your girl might say when you take off your pants!

You really sound like a 16 year old in some of your phraseology.

[Back to original message]