[BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42)

Jerry Fusselman 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
> partnership.
> (Premise) A partnership is two people.
> Therefore a partnership understanding is an understanding held by two
> people.
> (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.

Jerry Fusselman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121108/83c0fbc2/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list