John, List: JFS: I suggest that you convert MEGs to conventional EGs by using the triad Rel.
Your suggestion is duly noted, and I sincerely appreciate you now recognizing that they are equivalent, rather than alleging (incorrectly) that MEGs are "false." JFS: Please *study* my last two notes. I have refuted all your claims, and there is nothing more to discuss until you do your homework. Why assume that I did not *already *study them carefully, *before *responding? Which specific "claims" of mine do you believe that you have somehow "refuted"? In any case, such condescension is rather unbecoming. I have expressed my respect for you on multiple occasions during our recent exchanges, despite our sharp disagreements. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:49 AM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 2/20/2019 12:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > As Gary F. already pointed out, only when someone insists on > > interpreting them as if they were /ordinary /EGs > > Yes. I acknowledged that. I suggest that you convert MEGs > to conventional EGs by using the triad Rel. > > Please *study* my last two notes. I have refuted all your claims, > and there is nothing more to discuss until you do your homework. > > Then we can begin a more fruitful thread. > > John >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
