[ExI] Healthcare and governments thinking long range
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sun Jun 21 06:43:31 UTC 2009
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Damien Broderick<thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 10:05 PM 6/20/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote:
>> > Nobody needs to wade through a reductio ad absurdum, and explaining
>> > impatiently that it's wrong just goes to validate its point.
>> ### So would you say that dismissing a flat-Earther actually validates
>> his point?
>> I am too busy now.
> I'm too bored now, but I might as well say in my abyss of yawning ennui that
> No, it doesn't validate the *Flat-Earther's* point, but it would go to
> validate the point of someone making mock of a Flat-Earther by carrying his
> argument to an even more absurd extreme. The only question is whether I
> understood BillK's intention or whether you have. See what I mean about
> being bored? Zzzzzz.
### We'd have to ask Bill about his intentions but I doubt he was
being ironic, if I am catching your drift correctly. Although we may
be simply drifting off, unfortunately not to sleep. No zzzzz's for me,
I got paged, had to think about cervical lesions including but not
limited to disk protrusion and vertebral dissection, and now I am
sleepless and bored at 2:38 AM.
More information about the extropy-chat