San Antonio Off Topic Thread Part 3 (Houston, Center: villages, seasonal, military)

[rd2007]

I love a good positive story, especially when it involves animals and humans. They should show more of them and less of what they usually show.

[sapphire]

n/m

[doss1]

Originally Posted by sapphire

n/m

ok.

[sapphire]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

ok.

Thanks....I was trying to help Jules out with something near and dear to her heart, but I was about an hour late for the bus. Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to keep up with that groovy chick.

One of my cats got out about an hour ago and she won't come back in. I pulled all my plants in....covered up the ones I had to leave outside.....2 of the 3 cats are in.....gotta turn one of the faucets on.......and that's the news, and I am OUTTA HERE.

[doss1]

^thanks for that clarification, Saph.

I was alone in the woods all that afternoon, and I did not steal the letter.

But I do have strong evidence for the denial of (7). For I have the same evidence as everyone else that I was in the chairman's office and took the letter; and this evidence is sufficient to convince my colleagues (who are eminently fairminded and initially well disposed towards me) of my guilt. They are convinced on the basis of what they know that I took the letter; and I know everything they know.

So I take (7) as basic; but I have a substantial reason to believe a defeater of (7). According to Q*, if I am to be rational in this situation, I must have even better reason to believe that this potential defeater is false. Do I? Well, the only reason I have for thinking this potential defeater false is just (7) itself; I don't have any independent reason to think the defeater false. (The warrant I have for (7) is nonpropositional warrant; it is not conferred upon (7) by virtue of my believing that proposition on the basis of some other proposition, for I don't believe (7) on the basis of any other proposition.)

In this situation it is obvious, I take it, that I am perfectly rational in continuing to believe (7) in this basic way....

[doss1]

What is it with people putting "eskimo" sweaters on their dogs? They go out to take a leak for 5mins and people think the dog is in NOME, ALASKA.

If you're going to do a sweater, then do it like this:

Thanks to the Dachsie for modeling (yea she's a girly girl).

[wCat]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

^thanks for that clarification, Saph.

I was alone in the woods all that afternoon, and I did not steal the letter.

But I do have strong evidence for the denial of (7). For I have the same evidence as everyone else that I was in the chairman's office and took the letter; and this evidence is sufficient to convince my colleagues (who are eminently fairminded and initially well disposed towards me) of my guilt. They are convinced on the basis of what they know that I took the letter; and I know everything they know.

So I take (7) as basic; but I have a substantial reason to believe a defeater of (7). According to Q*, if I am to be rational in this situation, I must have even better reason to believe that this potential defeater is false. Do I? Well, the only reason I have for thinking this potential defeater false is just (7) itself; I don't have any independent reason to think the defeater false. (The warrant I have for (7) is nonpropositional warrant; it is not conferred upon (7) by virtue of my believing that proposition on the basis of some other proposition, for I don't believe (7) on the basis of any other proposition.)

In this situation it is obvious, I take it, that I am perfectly rational in continuing to believe (7) in this basic way....

Nick....are you auditioning for a part on the "Prisoner?" ...lol....lost me here, cutie!

[SilverCreek78250]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

^thanks for that clarification, Saph.

I was alone in the woods all that afternoon, and I did not steal the letter.

But I do have strong evidence for the denial of (7). For I have the same evidence as everyone else that I was in the chairman's office and took the letter; and this evidence is sufficient to convince my colleagues (who are eminently fairminded and initially well disposed towards me) of my guilt. They are convinced on the basis of what they know that I took the letter; and I know everything they know.

So I take (7) as basic; but I have a substantial reason to believe a defeater of (7). According to Q*, if I am to be rational in this situation, I must have even better reason to believe that this potential defeater is false. Do I? Well, the only reason I have for thinking this potential defeater false is just (7) itself; I don't have any independent reason to think the defeater false. (The warrant I have for (7) is nonpropositional warrant; it is not conferred upon (7) by virtue of my believing that proposition on the basis of some other proposition, for I don't believe (7) on the basis of any other proposition.)

In this situation it is obvious, I take it, that I am perfectly rational in continuing to believe (7) in this basic way....

Whoa. I've been away from this place for way too long.

I'll just leave now.

Yeesh!

[Deep Forest]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

^thanks for that clarification, Saph.

I was alone in the woods all that afternoon, and I did not steal the letter.

But I do have strong evidence for the denial of (7). For I have the same evidence as everyone else that I was in the chairman's office and took the letter; and this evidence is sufficient to convince my colleagues (who are eminently fairminded and initially well disposed towards me) of my guilt. They are convinced on the basis of what they know that I took the letter; and I know everything they know.

So I take (7) as basic; but I have a substantial reason to believe a defeater of (7). According to Q*, if I am to be rational in this situation, I must have even better reason to believe that this potential defeater is false. Do I? Well, the only reason I have for thinking this potential defeater false is just (7) itself; I don't have any independent reason to think the defeater false. (The warrant I have for (7) is nonpropositional warrant; it is not conferred upon (7) by virtue of my believing that proposition on the basis of some other proposition, for I don't believe (7) on the basis of any other proposition.)

In this situation it is obvious, I take it, that I am perfectly rational in continuing to believe (7) in this basic way....

That's some good stuff you got there !!!!

[rd2007]

one of my dogs actually likes getting his sweater on when it's cold. Then again, if he was human he would probably be a hair dresser or on one of the HGTV shows... think Stan's dog from the very old school South Park.