Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity andstartingwithdefinit

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cute, Pavithra, no matter what number you choose between 1 and 8, the answer comes out for all men to be misogynists!

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pavithra
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:13 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity andstartingwithdefinitions

 

 

Dr. Sowa,  I read the paper about The Ontological Status Of Women and Abstract Entities

 

Here is a math quiz for all of your nice intelligent men out there... ( you do not have to tell me the answer..)

 

 

It is truly remarkable just how accurate this is!

 

1)  Pick your favorite number between 1 and 8

2)  Multiply your choice by 3

3)  Add 3

4)  Multiply again by 3

5) You'll get a 2 digit number.....maybe 42, for example

6) Add the digits together.  Example 4 and 2 = 6                                      

 

 

 

 

Now Scroll down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With that number, see who your ROLE MODEL is from the list below:

 

 

 

1. Albert Einstein

2. Oprah Winfrey

3. Mother Theresa

4. Barrack Obama

5. Bill Gates

6. Gandhi

7. Eleanor Roosevelt

8. Babe Ruth

9. Lady Gaga ( yeah these for those misogynists)

10. Winston Churchhill

11.Whoopi Goldberg

12.Dalai Lama

 

--- On Wed, 9/22/10, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and startingwithdefinitions
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 8:59 AM

On 9/21/2010 10:32 PM, Rick Murphy wrote:
> Do you Doug, or others here, actually believe in the existence of
> objects that are not material? Do you believe that abstract objects
> exist? What about non-existent objects? There's no shortage of papers
> that make these claims. Here are two: [1], [2].

Whenever anybody raises such issues, I recommend a short transcript
of a lecture that Alonzo Church presented at Harvard -- specifically
for the purpose of annoying Quine:

    http://jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
    The Ontological Status Of Women and Abstract Entities

John




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)