[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

[John Major Jenkins]

Sid,
I certainly had no intention of attacking, merely clarifying and responding to a greater ambiguity, and factual incorrectness, in your alternate choices. I explained very clearly what I meant in A in a concise exegetical paragraph. I addressed the use of the conceptual term "equivalence" versus the more technical term "mathematical." I can't be any clearer.

JMJ 

-----Original Message-----
>From: Sid Hollander <sid.hollander at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 22, 2008 10:46 PM
>To: AZATLAN <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
>Subject: [Aztlan]  Circular reasoning re 2112
>
>I just repeated your statement in A because it seemed to (me at least) have
>built in ambiguity.  For that reason I offered B and C as possible
>alternatives (not say that I support either) so that you could clarify your
>statement for us that do not understand.  Instead of clarifying you attacked
>what I thought may have been what you were implying in statement A.
>
>Back to square A. Continue the discussion, I still don't know what you are
>saying in A (and you will not reword it)
>
>-- 
>Sid Hollander
>Merida, Yucatan
>_______________________________________________
>Aztlan mailing list
>http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>