>>> Part 1 of 2...
 -=> Quoting John Boone to Clarence Hogan <=-
 JB> On 12-27-97 Clarence Hogan wrote to John Boone... 
 
 JB> Hello Clarence and thanks for writing, 
 
 CH> JB> However, as I pointed out to Clarence, when given, a  
 CH> JB> either or statement of either good or evil, and not good  
 CH> JB> leaves us with evil.  
 
 CH>  Now just a cotton pickin bowl weevil hair minute! 
 CH>  "NOT GOOD" absolutely does NOT leave anyone with EVIL! 
 
 JB> Clarence as I tried pointing out to you several times, 
 JB> before, there is a GIVEN, ASSUMPTION, which is 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *******-ONLY VALID-******** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> *********************************************** 
 JB> when dealing with a -TRUE- either-or situation. 
 JB> In this case, the assumption was that all humans 
 JB> are either good or evil.  BTW, I don't believe 
 JB> this proposition to be true. 
 Well, it was sure thought that you did and if you actually do,
 then what are you going to do with Re 3:15-16 then?
 JB> The logic went like this: 
 
 JB> proposition #1:  all humans are either good or bad 
 JB> proposition #2:  a human is not good 
 JB> conclusion    :  a human is bad or evil   
 Won't work, for have you not thrown a monkey wrench into the
 works?  :)
 JB> Such a conclusion is valid -only- when proposition #1 
 JB> and number #2 are valid.  As I pointed out, we were
 JB> -assuming- number one to true which in fact it isn't.   
 Looks like there is an awful lot of assuming going on, does it
 not?  :)
  
 CH>  Just because you are a "not good" or "bad" typist, does NOT 
 CH>  mean that your are an "EVIL" typist, OR ARE YOU? 
 
 JB> As I pointed out before, when there are more than 
 JB> two classes such -LOGIC- falls  (IOW, I agree such a 
 JB> dichotomy can't be made). Before, you used 
 JB> examples of animals.  Let me see if I can help you 
 JB> understand the difference. 
 
 OK!
 JB> In that example, you used and example of humans 
 JB> versus non-humans: 
 
 JB> proposition #1: all living creature are either humans or not 
 JB> propostionn #2: this living creature is not a human 
 JB> conclusion    : therefore this living creature is a bird 
 
 Won't work, for my conclusion is that it is a fish, since I
 don't fish for birds!  :)
  
 JB> As I pointed before, you were correct in pointing out that 
 JB> such logic is faulty, I agree with you, but pointed out 
 JB> the reason such a conclusion was faulty is it made a distinction 
 JB> between non-humans. 
 
 Well, since we agree, from whence does the confusion come?
  
 JB> However, let us look at the exact same two propositions but with 
 JB> a different conclusion: 
 
 JB> proposition #1: all living creatures are either human or not 
 JB> propostionn #2: the living creature is not a human 
 JB> conclusion    : the living creature is not a human  
 
 Sensible conclusion IMHE!  :)
   
 JB> Please notice, the conclusion is valid, provided both propistion 
 JB> #1 and #2 are valid; in addition, please notice, the conclusion 
 JB> doesn't make a distinction amoung non-humans.  
 
 Noted!
 JB> Now getting back to your question, 
 
 JB> Just because you are a "not good" or "bad" typist, does NOT 
 JB> mean that your are an "EVIL" typist, OR ARE YOU? 
 
 JB> You confuse the meaning of "bad typist" (pretaining to one's 
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30
---------------