Tara, Hi. I'm a philosophy student (well, double major in History and Philosophy with a certificate specializing in the humanities and new media) (oh [yes, you get two parenthetical comments here!] that's also why I was asking about your definition of the tautological nature of the mind, to which you gave a non-answer in reply. So, briefly, I'd like to point out that a tautology is an issue of logic [although not meaningless, as many logicians would argue] and relates to statements such as, "I'll get there when I get there," not to far more complex issues such as neuropathy and such.])
Now, onto your "philosophical point of order." I'd like to list two points of contention regarding this claim. First, I'm sure you're familiar with Buddhist philosophical concepts (familiar with, but whether or not you comprehend them seems to be another issue entirely), in which a thing can both be and not be at the same time, such as with language in which a word, at once, means something and is meaningless. Second, Hegel's Geist perfectly applies to this situation, the "spirit" a community becomes a material thing itself, while having no materiality per se.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I am no way in the pay of Matt Inman, nor, I believe, are any other individuals posting on this site. His lawyer certainly is, but that's probably the extent of it (at least regarding this particular case). Now, you should probably listen to the person who is in the employ of Matt Inman, as he is offering you Very Good Advice regarding the Very Bad Situation in which you and your husband have found yourselves.
That advice was, to reiterate, that a lawsuit would be a Very Bad Idea (I believe the quote was, "just a really, really bad idea"). You can say all you want that your husband is the best lawyer ever on the face of the planet (and the most attractive and awesomest and whatever ad nauseum), but, based on the actions he is currently displaying, he is, sadly, not embodying such. Listening to Inman's lawyer would be a display of intelligence to which I would be thrilled to see (seriously, I kind of want this to end well for you guys, I've grown to like you in some strange ways [not those kind of strange ways]). All Charles would really have to do is just say, "Hey, what I've been doing... yeah that was a Really Bad Idea, and I'm sorry, but Inman's response bothered me and I reacted badly."
Re: Re: Re:
Tara, Hi. I'm a philosophy student (well, double major in History and Philosophy with a certificate specializing in the humanities and new media) (oh [yes, you get two parenthetical comments here!] that's also why I was asking about your definition of the tautological nature of the mind, to which you gave a non-answer in reply. So, briefly, I'd like to point out that a tautology is an issue of logic [although not meaningless, as many logicians would argue] and relates to statements such as, "I'll get there when I get there," not to far more complex issues such as neuropathy and such.])
Now, onto your "philosophical point of order." I'd like to list two points of contention regarding this claim. First, I'm sure you're familiar with Buddhist philosophical concepts (familiar with, but whether or not you comprehend them seems to be another issue entirely), in which a thing can both be and not be at the same time, such as with language in which a word, at once, means something and is meaningless. Second, Hegel's Geist perfectly applies to this situation, the "spirit" a community becomes a material thing itself, while having no materiality per se.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I am no way in the pay of Matt Inman, nor, I believe, are any other individuals posting on this site. His lawyer certainly is, but that's probably the extent of it (at least regarding this particular case). Now, you should probably listen to the person who is in the employ of Matt Inman, as he is offering you Very Good Advice regarding the Very Bad Situation in which you and your husband have found yourselves.
That advice was, to reiterate, that a lawsuit would be a Very Bad Idea (I believe the quote was, "just a really, really bad idea"). You can say all you want that your husband is the best lawyer ever on the face of the planet (and the most attractive and awesomest and whatever ad nauseum), but, based on the actions he is currently displaying, he is, sadly, not embodying such. Listening to Inman's lawyer would be a display of intelligence to which I would be thrilled to see (seriously, I kind of want this to end well for you guys, I've grown to like you in some strange ways [not those kind of strange ways]). All Charles would really have to do is just say, "Hey, what I've been doing... yeah that was a Really Bad Idea, and I'm sorry, but Inman's response bothered me and I reacted badly."