--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote: > > ... shoot. I let that message go through even though i didn't realize that it > left too much of the other message below the signature. My fault on that one. > > SW Hi SW, I said "shoot" to myself after I sent the post, realizing I broke a rule. I didn't intend to break the rule. I'm glad that you didn't take the time to erase it after the fact; this way I can see whether Stuart might feel fit to take me up on any of my modest challenges. Why is that rule a rule again? Is it because the excess stuff left below the comments are totally irrelevant or is it a storage capacity issue? Let me know, just so I know if it is the one or the other or some other reason if you would be so kind. I'll understand if it is a capacity issue. If not, then it seems one is better off having access to what wasn't exactly responded to. That way a third party might chime in about a relevant issue that didn't get its due given the limited responses. Also, I believe everything I said in the post about Stuart's claims to be perfectly accurate. I left it a possibility that Stuart might find even just one thing to cherry pick from my relatively short post. That would be better than, say, his deciding to defend himself through a third party (yourself) via explaining why he need not defend himself. An unfortunate result would be my not getting Stuart right. I think it is impossible that I'm getting Stuart wrong. More unfortunate would be Stuart's lack of ability to set me straight if I were getting him wrong. Lastly, I really don't think Stuart's criticisms of Searle are informed by readings of his target article in BBS or his APA address. He can set me straight by referring to either of these papers as offering motivations for his criticisms which to me seem entirely unmotivated by these articles. Cheers, Budd ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/