Heidegger

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>>>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
>>>>>>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
>>>>>>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical
>>>>>>deduction that I am […]

Of course what Polanik is doing could be characterized as a game but given that his pattern is unabated in the face of it being directly questioned I would characterize his doings differently because who Polanik is being rings of some sort of disturbance … like a possibility.
Bob
>From: Anthony Crifasi
>Date: 2008/03/29 Sat AM 11:23:18 […]

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>>>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
> >>>>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
> >>>>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction
> […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
>>>>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
>>>>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction
>>>>that I am not nothing.
>>>left unaddressed and unquoted, […]

Jud is sure concerning Joe’s slippery gameplaying:
> It is obvious that Joe is running rings around skinhead Heideggerienism
Well, it seems to me, a mere musician, that neither Anthony nor I (nor
MichaelE earlier) have been exemplifying or employing any kind of what you
call “Heideggerienism” [sic, surely] in our respective dealings with Joe, so
it is hard […]

In a message dated 29/03/2008 12:34:07 GMT Standard Time,
_crifasian at gmail.com_ (mailto:crifasian@gmail.com) writes: Bob Guevara wrote:
I’ve never seen anything quite like Polanik and I’ve been on the net since
the command line days … he’s not a troll per se. He’s not simply mis-guided
or dense or … it’s quite bizarre.
“… before some […]

Bob Guevara wrote:
> I’ve never seen anything quite like Polanik and I’ve been on the net since
> the command line days … he’s not a troll per se. He’s not simply
> mis-guided or dense or … it’s quite bizarre.
“…before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest
knowledge will make it easy for what […]

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
> >>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
> >>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction
> >>that I am not nothing.
>
> but
>
> >>Q -> -Q [Q implies its own […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
>>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
>>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction
>>that I am not nothing.
but
>>Q -> -Q [Q implies its own negation] because any […]

I’ve never seen anything quite like Polanik and I’ve been on the net since
the command line days … he’s not a troll per se. He’s not simply
mis-guided or dense or … it’s quite bizarre.
—–Original Message—–
From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-archos.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Crifasi
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:36 AM
To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy […]