Vernon:
You wrote:
"Let me say that I am surprised by your frank admission, viz "I have not
considered it useful to check out your math." - for in that case how is
it possible, (a) that you can agree that the phenomena are real,
(b) suggest that they amount to little more than coincidence, and (c)
consider my arguments to be "fatally flawed"?"
As I said, I assume you did the math right, and with that assumption I
can agree the math is right. That seems obvious.
Because I consider the math to be a coincidence, I suggest this.
I consider your arguments fatally flawed because that's how they appear.
You wrote:
"In respect of the latter claim, you seem to be under the impression that
my arguments turn only on the understanding that ten is the
divinely-ordained 'collective unit' for man's numbering and measuring
systems."
Like it or not, you did make the claim that "ten being divinely inspired"
was part of your thesis. Or so I read.
You continue not to discuss your presuppositions, and that's OK.
But without knowing them, I conclude that my "defense rests"
comment is still in line.
I understand this is very important to you and that you
believe in it deeply. I see it as having the intellectual
deepness of a newspaper horoscope column, and so
am not disposed to discuss it further. I am sorry we are so far
apart on the thesis. But let's let it rest. If there is substance
to your claim, I wish you well in selling it to somebody. Sometime.
Somewhere.
But I think you are wasting your time.
You may have the last word.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 16:41:54 EDT