[BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42)
jfusselman at gmail.com
Thu Nov 8 02:11:55 CET 2012
Sorry, until now, I forgot to answer a pointed question of clarification by
Eric. Personally, I think that questions of clarification on BLML should
generally be answered.
Eric is under no obligation to respond, of course, but I feel it is only
fair for me to answer such clear and pointed questions, even though many on
BLML do not.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Eric Landau wrote:
> I don't know how to make this simple enough for Jerry. I'll try one
> more time:
> (Premise) A partnership understanding is an understanding held by a
> (Premise) A partnership is two people.
> Therefore a partnership understanding is an understanding held by two
> (Premise) Only partnership understandings are subject to disclosure.
> Therefore only understandings held by two people are subject to disclosure.
> I still don't get which of those premises Jerry's disagrees with.
That's a pointed question, which might further the discussion, so thanks!
Alright, the first Premise I disagree with is the first premised listed:
IMO, a partnership understanding is not held by a partnership: There is
no such thing as a partnership brain. There are two brains in the
partnership. That's the fatal flaw I see in premise #1. Thus, the phrase
"is an understanding held by a partnership" is nonsense. If this sentence
is only a tiny error in semantics, like I expect to to be told, then I
expect that someone could rephrase the essential argument to fix the tiny
Again, Eric can choose to respond or not as he likes. I just thought
it incumbent on me to answer such a pointed question.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml