Implicit complement unfound, unfounded - Sophistry’s tautologies**
January 9th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Implicit complement unfound, unfounded - Sophistry’s tautologies :: Has The Implicit Complement Been Found? :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement? :: Summary of Arguments against the Experientio
In a message dated 1/9/2008 10:05:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
Jud:
You would ALL be clear of your confusion if you could only grasp what I
discovered years ago (and F - - -the *tradition*)
That’s right, Jud, but don’t throw away the meaning with the tradition which
is but the
institutionalising of a meaning *qua instatuere* and which is to kill meaning
by placing it
in being (as “tradition” or otherwise as *doxa*). What is the meaning in the
fogged over meaning in this arguement but “IS” as no-thing of substance but
the necessarry logical synthetic given of nihil as the conceptual ground upon
which all substance stands. Therefore:
*IS* is NOT A VERB!
whereas *is not* (sic) is a verb. But since you have already thrown out the
baby with the bathwater like the others I doubt if you know what the fuck I am
talking about. Ergo: y ‘all get off the game board and go back to start
(*apieron*). In any case ‘up the tradition’ where you wipe best the undigested
meaningful residue of assimilation.
Bernard
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exerc…
