Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation on tweaks

[Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote:

> I'm also a very strong arguer that ehird's "nothing is implicit"  
> rule is
> nowhere in the ruleset. ehird seems to think it's implicit, for some
> reason. Yes, Suber's 101 makes the point; but that rule isn't in B.
> Regardless of some supposes absence of implicitness, when the rules
> aren't explicit /something/ has to be implied into them; otherwise
> pretty much everything would be neither true nor false.

God, you sound just like the nomicron people.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss