tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3849308894950738864..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Sandstad and Jansen on Aristotle’s RevengeEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34951084350758525902020-03-26T02:23:49.793-07:002020-03-26T02:23:49.793-07:00Depends. If the causal power of the whole is just ...Depends. If the causal power of the whole is just the sum of the causal power of the parts, then I'd argue that we aren't in fact confronted with a new substance at all. Substances on different ontological levels require difference in quality, not quantity. So it would only be a failure of Aristotelianism, if reductionism were true in all such instancesDominik Kowalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14634739012344612398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8658666086677915752020-03-08T12:46:47.018-07:002020-03-08T12:46:47.018-07:00If you're trying to lose kilograms then you ce...If you're trying to lose kilograms then you certainly have to jump on this totally brand new personalized keto meal plan diet.<br /><br />To create this keto diet service, certified nutritionists, fitness trainers, and top chefs joined together to develop keto meal plans that are effective, painless, cost-efficient, and delicious.<br /><br />Since their first launch in 2019, hundreds of individuals have already completely transformed their body and health with the benefits a smart keto meal plan diet can provide.<br /><br /><i>Speaking of benefits:</i> <b><a href="http://syntaxlinks.com/click/?b=4876628562041550935&p=8681842182963060099&a=8&c=7&s=67e15ef910002fd4b7fda2cea3d61026" rel="nofollow">clicking this link</a></b>, you'll discover 8 scientifically-confirmed ones given by the keto meal plan diet.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986278845542362873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73702394616417808472020-02-19T02:39:47.679-08:002020-02-19T02:39:47.679-08:00Why keep telling fibs under about 14 different ali...Why keep telling fibs under about 14 different aliases when your own name will do Georgy Mancz. <br /><br />Any hope you had of ever being seen as normal and sensible has long since gone down the drain because of your compulsion to return and pour out more angst, like the last two posts. Who you are is obvious yet, as maintaining your many personae seems to be the very core of your existence, helping you out of the world of play acting is proving to be a useful and even amusing activity. The completion of your education will rid the world of yet another troll and clear up the combox. But don't let me get you down. DO write again.Troll Patrolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4946490175288805302020-02-18T22:34:15.386-08:002020-02-18T22:34:15.386-08:00Breadroll
”What I understand here is that 'to ...Breadroll<br />”What I understand here is that 'to exist something must be extended in space' (the other questions seem to assume this must be the case). This doesn't appear self evident to me, again probably not to many readers of the blog so explaining why this must be true will be an important part of your argument. “<br />A mathematical point is an abstraction, not a real object. A point is literally nothing. What fits inside of a point? There is no inside of a point so nothing can fit inside of a point and it is incoherent to assert that a real thing of any sort exists somehow inside of a point.<br /><br />But, just supposing, a point actually had mass. What would the density be of that massive object? Density is mass over volume, so what is m/0? One might say infinity, but better to realize that is simply an invalid expression, yielding only a divide by zero error. The same divide by zero error occurs when considering any aspect of a real thing somehow existing within a point, that is, having no extent in space.<br /><br />No real thing can exist without being extended in space.<br /><br />” how has physics shown that causation doesn't exist, why does it ignore it and what is the relationship between physics and reality in this respect (refering back to the Epistemic structural realism point)?”<br />Because in physics there is only the mutual interaction. The designation of cause and effect is arbitrary. In any interaction to say one object is the cause and the other object is the effect is meaningless because they are both mutually the causes and effects of each other. Dr. Feser reprinted a quote of Russell on this point in 5 proofs, but what Dr. Feser reprinted was proof texting made into a strawman of Russell, who wrote “In the motions of mutually gravitating bodies, there is nothing that can be called a cause, and nothing that can be called an effect; there is merely a formula.” (On the Notion of Cause, with Applications to the Free-Will Problem BERTRAND RUSSELL). <br /><br />You can read the paper on line if you wish and clearly Russell is using “formula” as a shorthand in that particular sentence for the mutual interaction that is described by various formulas in physics.<br /><br />Another paper on the subject I always suggest is “Against Measurement” by John Stewart Bell, in which Bell shows how, in physics, there is only the experiment, not a measurement, because that which we use to measure is necessarily an active participant in change including the thing we seek to measure.<br /><br />“How do you argue against the Thomistic analysis of change, which is the basis of the A/T understanding of causation?”<br />All change is mutual in nature. There is no such thing as a hierarchical regress of changers or a linear regress of change, there is only a complex aggregate of mutual interactions through time.<br /><br />Further, all change of every sort requires physical motion of things. There is no such thing as a sort of change that does not require a corresponding physical motion of things.<br /><br />If we wish to take a freeze frame and look with higher and higher magnification we see that all change is motion of material, and when things interact they always do so mutually at every level of analysis so there is no call for an infinite regress of changers because movers are moving each other with no need of an unmoved first mover.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44442987435693391732020-02-18T22:33:26.223-08:002020-02-18T22:33:26.223-08:00Breadroll,
”Both Ontic Structural Realism and Epi...Breadroll, <br />”Both Ontic Structural Realism and Epistemic Structural Realism are about the relationship between Physics and reality, I don't recall the term 'structural reality' being used in in relation to them, they both just refer back to 'reality'. “<br />Ok, others can choose their words to their own liking. I am not a member of any school of philosophy. I like the modifier of “structural” in conjunction with “reality” to emphasize a real existent structure in the universe, since some people think abstract objects are real, and other may have various versions of reality.<br /><br />”Here are two definitions of what 'necessary being' might mean, the first is based on the A/T approach to modality, the second one on the possible worlds account of modality: <br />a) A being that cannot fail to exist and doesn't change. <br />b) A being that exists in every possible world and has the same properties in every possible world. “<br />There is only one existentially possible world, the world that actually does exist, the real world. A necessary being is a being that could not not exist in the real world at the particular time we are considering that being.<br /><br />”I suspect that most people reading this blog will understand necessary being in something like these terms. Following from these definitions, a necessary being can't have an explanation for its existence because explanations can only relate to the existence of contingent things or changing things.”<br />I reject both of those definitions, but thanks for stating them, it is always good to clarify terms. <br /><br />”The main relevant thing about God in this context is that he is understood to be a necessary being, given what I noted above you should be able to see why, for someone who understands necessary being in those terms, the question 'why does a necessary being exist as opposed to nothing?' seems meaningless. “<br />Right, which is part of why I don’t accept those definitions, as they seem to be rather too convenient so as to dodge further difficult questions by simply declaring the questions to be invalid.<br /><br />”Having parts implies contingency”<br />That is just a poorly argued assertion. There is no logical reason why a necessary being cannot have parts necessarily.<br /><br />“ and possibility of change so I think it is not just for Thomists that a necessary being can't have parts.”<br />Divine simplicity is an incoherent assertion. That isn’t just me saying so. Even well known and published theistic philosophers like Plantinga, Craig, and others have provided many arguments that clearly show, to assert a god with a mind, a will, vast knowledge, and sustaining powers that is also absolutely simple is incoherent.<br /><br />I realize that the Thomist has engaged in a regression analysis and reasoned back to an absolutely simple being. That is like doing a long math problem and at the end you write 5=1. Most of us take that to mean we made a mistake in our prior reasoning and we then go back to figure out what we did wrong.<br /><br />The Thomist takes a different approach, that of simply insisting that 5 must really equal 1 because of the long work of logical reasoning that was used to arrive at that solution.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67739862525641228162020-02-18T21:47:21.036-08:002020-02-18T21:47:21.036-08:00The fact that Troll Patrol is accusing Georgy Manc...The fact that Troll Patrol is accusing Georgy Mancz is *itself* a give away. Georgy wrote a long refutation of Cervantes' Feserism Is Not Thomism site. Why else start accusing a poster who as far as I know hasn't posted regularly in the comments here for... a long time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4346147822830732042020-02-18T17:24:34.012-08:002020-02-18T17:24:34.012-08:00Atno, notice how Troll Patrol has picked on Gregor...Atno, notice how Troll Patrol has picked on Gregory Mancz as his foil. Ask yourself, who is most likely to the one trying to cause confusion here? Is it most likely to be, Cervantes, the known creep and obsessive who Feser has had to ban, and who took little notice of that ban, so Feser had to ban him again and start deleting his posts? Recall that the impersonatipns and suspicious Anon comments when Feser first told Cervantes to get lost and were in defence of Cervantes. Or is it more likely to be the, as I far as I know, the quite normal and sensible poster, Gregory Mancz?<br /><br />This is a serious issue because Cervantes has taken to impersonating posters who use the name function. Who knows what he might say and attach our names to. All need to be alert just in case he says something outrageous pretending to be other posters.Cervantes is a creepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40045222096167181042020-02-18T15:11:46.545-08:002020-02-18T15:11:46.545-08:00Mancz, if you yourself and nobody else is in the b...Mancz, if you yourself and nobody else is in the business of making up a host of personae and getting them to construct fake conversations, you have only yourself to blame for being shown up. Mental discipline is that something you don't have hence you will compulsively come back to get another dose of the truth from me. Screeching and gnashing of teeth will not help you either. But I do not despair of completing your education yet. Still, if you wish to remain in willful but blissful ignorance, then heavenly silence is always an option. Troll Patrolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22005905693743253182020-02-18T14:52:43.849-08:002020-02-18T14:52:43.849-08:00Mutuality is one of the key facts of how the unive...<i> Mutuality is one of the key facts of how the universe actually operates that is absent from Thomism and leads Thomism to assert so many incoherencies. Causality has been abandoned or ignored in physics because we now formulate mutual interactions wherein the designation of a cause and an effect is arbitrary and meaningless. In physics there is only the mutual interaction. </i><br /><br />This is another key point in a lot of your arguments and by addressing this point you are attacking one of the foundations of A/T metaphysics (analysis of causation and change). But the claim that causation doesn't exist requires a more substantial explanation and defence because it is much more generally controversial, not just for Thomists; how has physics shown that causation doesn't exist, why does it ignore it and what is the relationship between physics and reality in this respect (refering back to the Epistemic structural realism point)? How do you argue against the Thomistic analysis of change, which is the basis of the A/T understanding of causation?Breadrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456084254360749449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85316677862814563102020-02-18T14:51:27.457-08:002020-02-18T14:51:27.457-08:00Stardusty,
The term "structural reality&qu...Stardusty, <br /><br /><i> The term "structural reality" is a very good one, I think. Far too many of my fellow atheists are guilty of the fallacy of reification, particularly when it comes to the B theory of time as implied by GR. It does not follow that merely because one has a logical description, a mathematical expression, an abstraction that therefore it must be the case the there is a real corresponding structure in the universe, even if those mathematical expressions are part of a larger theory that has otherwise proved to be highly successful, such as GR. </i><br /><br />Both Ontic Structural Realism and Epistemic Structural Realism are about the relationship between Physics and reality, I don't recall the term 'structural reality' being used in in relation to them, they both just refer back to 'reality'. <br /><br />That the structures and relationships described by physics correspond to some features of reality isn't controversial, how far it goes is. <br /><br /><i> Nobody knows why there exist necessary beings as opposed to absolutely nothing at all, that question is an ancient and as yet unsolved riddle, and indeed, Dr. Feser has said the question itself is invalid and makes no sense to ask. In that respect I disagree with him. It is a perfectly good question to ask, but nobody has generally published a sound answer so it remains a riddle. </i><br /><br />Here are two definfintions of what 'necessary being' might mean, the first is based on the A/T approach to modality, the second one on the possible worlds account of modality: <br /><br />a) A being that cannot fail to exist and doesn't change. <br /><br />b) A being that exists in every possible world and has the same properties in every possible world. <br /><br />I suspect that most people reading this blog will understand necessary being in something like these terms. Following from these definitions, a necessary being can't have an explanation for its existence because explanations can only relate to the existence of contingent things or changing things. <br /><br /><i> Why is god necessary as opposed to absolutely nothing at all existing? </i><br /><br />The main relevant thing about God in this context is that he is understood to be a necessary being, given what I noted above you should be able to see why, for someone who understands necessary being in those terms, the question 'why does a necessary being exist as opposed to nothing?' seems meaningless. <br />Having parts implies contingency and possibility of change so I think it is not just for Thomists that a necessary being can't have parts. <br /><br /><i> If a thing has no extent then where or what is it and in what sense is it distinguishable from absolutely nothing? The notion that a thing can exist with no properties at all, no essences, is incoherent. </i><br /><br />What I understand here is that 'to exist something must be extended in space' (the other questions seem to assume this must be the case). This doesn't appear self evident to me, again probably not to many readers of the blog so explaining why this must be true will be an important part of your argument. <br /><br />It would be useful to read Feser's 'Scholastic Metaphysics' book for a description of what Thomists mean by 'essence' and what the 'real distinction' argument is about because as Ficino has said what you are saying about it at the moment doesn't make sense (a single thing can't have multiple essences, the real distinction doesn't involve essence and existence being seperable etc.) and people in comboxes usually won't have the time to fill in all this background.<br /><br />Breadrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456084254360749449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4908909207244192672020-02-18T14:41:17.649-08:002020-02-18T14:41:17.649-08:00Shut up, Cervantes, you creep.
Atno, if you look ...Shut up, Cervantes, you creep.<br /><br />Atno, if you look carefully, you will see that Troll Patrol doesn't actually accuse anyone of being Cervantes, because he is Cervantes. He also tries to cause more confusion. He and Cervantes other sock puppets turned up first after Feser first told Cervantes to get lost and us not to feed him. There was a rash of anonymous, very similar posters objecting to anyone who suggested we not feed the troll when Cervantes turned up. Cervantes hates Feser for banning him and those who tell others not to feed trolls, because they told people not to engage him. He picks on posters like Mr. Green by impersonating them because they too warned against engaging him.<br /><br />I agree it isn't pretty, and we should certainly limit anti-troll comments as much as possible. But I submit that it is better than never telling people not to feed the trolls. The likes of SP and Cervantes do come here sometimes and they do ruin comboxes. I think that it is clear that warning people what they are and not to engage them does tend to lessen the amount of replies and engagement they get. I think this is better than allowing them to run riot. Obviously it would be better if these trolls never darkened our door or if posters here we're ultra-disciplined and never fed them, but those are unlikely to be true. Heck, sometimes posters just don't know who the trolls are, at least at first. Anti-Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54567482799339125892020-02-18T09:15:56.266-08:002020-02-18T09:15:56.266-08:00And Haddad/Mancz. What happened to your promise to...And Haddad/Mancz. What happened to your promise to debate SDP? You got tired of being Haddad very quickly. Would have been just a bit too much work too keep that one up, knowing SD's capacity for generating content, whatever one makes of it.Troll Patrolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24535573492849191372020-02-17T11:21:28.987-08:002020-02-17T11:21:28.987-08:00'Against those posters'? 'lumping us a...'Against those posters'? 'lumping us all in together'? Considering that 90% of this thread is you, one would hope that you haven't actually got to the stage of believing this, Georgiy. Do your personae (about 15 counted so far) talk to each other off line as well? Not good, not good at all. I'll have to start calling you Gollum and clan. Troll Patrolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1155331285303967962020-02-17T08:20:39.559-08:002020-02-17T08:20:39.559-08:00Breadroll
Mutuality is one of the key facts of how...Breadroll<br />Mutuality is one of the key facts of how the universe actually operates that is absent from Thomism and leads Thomism to assert so many incoherencies. Causality has been abandoned or ignored in physics because we now formulate mutual interactions wherein the designation of a cause and an effect is arbitrary and meaningless. In physics there is only the mutual interaction.<br /><br />Aquinas failed for many reasons, one of them being that he constructed a false dichotomy in his regression of movers, neglecting mutual causality as a finite terminator. Thus, one need not choose between an unmoved first mover and an infinite regress.<br /><br />Thomism suffers from the same linearity of thought leading to incoherent assertions in its structural regression analysis as well.<br /><br />If there can be a necessary being at all it can be a being with simultaneous mutual co-dependent aspects, such as essence and existence, and it can be that each such being has its own necessity and its own co-dependent aspects such that there could be a multitude of separate minimally simple necessary beings or say, 24, minimally simple superposed necessary beings. <br /><br />The Thomist might place essence as ontologically prior to existence, but that sort of linear thinking is not required, and the mutuality we observe everywhere else suggests a mutuality of co-dependent essence and existence. It makes sense that by necessity an existent thing must both exist and manifest essences, that those aspects of structural reality are inseparable in the real structure of minimally simples in the real universe. <br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20875356219828211802020-02-17T08:19:03.738-08:002020-02-17T08:19:03.738-08:00Breadroll,
"You rarely seem concerned about p...Breadroll,<br />"You rarely seem concerned about providing clarification. "<br />I have actually gone into some fair detail in my posts, any particular point you think is unclear?<br /><br />I think I have been pretty clear, but that is the difference between making a statement and reading a statement. Commonly the writer thinks he is being perfectly clear, but to the reader it seems incomplete or even unintelligible.<br /><br />The term "structural reality" is a very good one, I think. Far too many of my fellow atheists are guilty of the fallacy of reification, particularly when it comes to the B theory of time as implied by GR. It does not follow that merely because one has a logical description, a mathematical expression, an abstraction that therefore it must be the case the there is a real corresponding structure in the universe, even if those mathematical expressions are part of a larger theory that has otherwise proved to be highly successful, such as GR. <br /><br />It seems to me that there must be a real structure to the simplest things that actually do exist in the universe.<br /><br />Thomism is not concerned, for the most part, about temporal origins. The basic approach of Aquinas was to use a present moment hierarchical regress analysis to get to "the bottom" irrespective of how that simplest real structure came to be existing in the distant past.<br /><br />Nobody knows why there exist necessary beings as opposed to absolutely nothing at all, that question is an ancient and as yet unsolved riddle, and indeed, Dr. Feser has said the question itself is invalid and makes no sense to ask. In that respect I disagree with him. It is a perfectly good question to ask, but nobody has generally published a sound answer so it remains a riddle.<br /><br />Why is god necessary as opposed to absolutely nothing at all existing? Well, the answer seems to go, he just is because that is what the word "necessary" means, god, it is asserted, just couldn't not be.<br /><br />Fine, if that is how we approach the riddle absent a truly informative answer then the assertion of god has no special validity, there could just as easily be a multitude of necessary beings, or perhaps a more modest number, say, 24.<br /><br />One assertion of a necessary being is as good as any other in that case, unless it can be shown that there is some fundamental reason that the asserted necessary being could not be necessary.<br /><br />For the Thomist that reasoning is in that a necessary being cannot have parts. I think that is merely a poorly reasoned assertion.<br /><br />If a being can be necessary then it can have at least inseparable aspects, or traits, or properties, or essences. What would it even mean to have an essence without something in existence that manifests that essence? The notion of a pure essence somehow existing in isolation in what would otherwise be absolutely noting at all is incoherent. An essence is of a thing.<br /><br />Likewise, how could a thing exist without some properties, such as extent? If a thing has no extent then where or what is it and in what sense is it distinguishable from absolutely nothing? The notion that a thing can exist with no properties at all, no essences, is incoherent.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27973428182913332052020-02-17T02:20:16.507-08:002020-02-17T02:20:16.507-08:00Stardusty,
You borrow vocabulary (or coin what s...Stardusty, <br /><br />You borrow vocabulary (or coin what seem to be related neologisms of your own) but the relationship between what you might mean and understand by a particular term and the way others use it is not obvious. You rarely seem concerned about providing clarification. <br /><br />It is one reason why, on a philosophy blog, you seem like such a troll. <br /><br />Breadrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456084254360749449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78832377102036015372020-02-17T00:57:15.850-08:002020-02-17T00:57:15.850-08:00*Condemning him outright.*Condemning him outright.Anti-Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88751225740519667352020-02-17T00:56:01.578-08:002020-02-17T00:56:01.578-08:00That's clearly what Cervantes is after as reve...That's clearly what Cervantes is after as revenge against Feser for banning him and against those posters who warned others he was a troll. I think you do him a service by lumping us all in together instead of condemning outright. He wishes to make the combox chaotic. He has even taken to impersonating long time posters like Mr. Green. Don't give him even implicit support by suggesting that this situation is anything but purely his making. Anti-Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22055839216467601412020-02-16T20:47:13.663-08:002020-02-16T20:47:13.663-08:00I don't know, but this back-and-forth of schiz...I don't know, but this back-and-forth of schizophrenic "Anonymous" users, each accusing the other of being Cervantes, or someone else, or a troll enabler, or whatever, is hilarious.<br /><br />I kinda feel sorry for Feser that this thread has been so thoroughly infested, but this is really hilarious and entertaining. "You're Cervantes" "no, you are" "you are crazy" "you should reply to him" "no you shouldn't" "you are Georgy Mancz" "no you're Cervantes" etc. Amazing.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2753937904585423432020-02-16T19:16:03.183-08:002020-02-16T19:16:03.183-08:00"The kind of structural realism I defend in A..."The kind of structural realism I defend in Aristotle’s Revenge is, specifically, epistemic structural realism."<br />Dr. Edward Feser<br />https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/12/cundy-on-relativity-and-a-theory-of-time.html<br /><br />So, by your lights Breadroll, Dr. Feser is talking "pure garbage". I don't agree in this instance, which is why I used a term that would be familiar to readers who are familiar with the writing of the site owner. <br /><br />I could have put it in different terms, but I rather like the term used by Dr. Feser in this case so that is how I expressed it, in the interest of trying to find at least some common ground.<br /><br />A quick google search would have told you that the term "structural realism" is cataloged in the online philosophy encyclopedias.<br /><br />Do you have any specific arguments to make, or counter arguments to make with respect to the OP or my arguments specifically?<br /><br />So far you have only offered uninformed and baseless attack.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28499477281459023432020-02-16T15:20:40.829-08:002020-02-16T15:20:40.829-08:00Take a look at Anon/Sigh/Don't Feed above. Poo...Take a look at Anon/Sigh/Don't Feed above. Poor old Georgy talking to himself again. Troll Patrolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85291335639664024322020-02-16T13:55:17.450-08:002020-02-16T13:55:17.450-08:00I did write that I was morbidly intrigued as to wh...I did write that I was morbidly intrigued as to what Stardusty refers to when he says'structural reality' but I scrolled up and read a couple of the posts he made above and came to the conclusion that I don't want to know because it is most likely pure garbage. Breadrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456084254360749449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61380650474512896552020-02-16T13:49:55.992-08:002020-02-16T13:49:55.992-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Breadrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08456084254360749449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22479311104470930262020-02-16T12:29:25.173-08:002020-02-16T12:29:25.173-08:00Almost an admission, I see.Almost an admission, I see.Anti-Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22554281481664069092020-02-16T10:12:46.173-08:002020-02-16T10:12:46.173-08:00This is comical. Haddad or whoever you are with th...This is comical. Haddad or whoever you are with the multiple personalities floating around here, maybe now you’ll see that we were right. Y’all (or just you?) wrote a reply to his points and he half addressed one of them and went on a tirade for the rest. Everyone see now what’s been said for months on this board?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com