[FRIAM] This is embarrassing

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Hm.  I don't think I could, or want to, figure out which series you're thinking of.  In fact, not being a scholar myself, I put little stock in *exact* quotations, responses, citations, etc.  A better approach would be for you to *paraphrase* what you *think* my position is.

I've done that with you (and/or Peirce).  I can do it again, if you'd like.  And I subsequently, in conversation with Eric, showed why I think it's fundamentally flawed. And I then presented my current position that I believe can be reduced to something very Peircian that avoids the flaws I pointed out.  But repeating it wouldn't be that productive, obviously.  It would be more productive for you to step out of your skin and pretend to be me for just 1 post.

If your paraphrasing of my position is *good*, then I'll have no choice but to do another round of pretending to be you.  And if I then can't find any flaws, you will have changed my mind.

On 07/12/2018 08:01 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I had a few moments away from the grandkids, etc., this evening and started to put your comments in a single file so that I could do my best to do them justice.  But I cannot, for some reason, find the crucial sequence of posts in which you said something, I responded, you responded by saying I hadn’t read what you had written, I asked you to try me, and you reluctantly accommodated me.  I have now scanned through every post in the “scientism” thread, and that exchange, which I vividly remember, simply isn’t there!  
> 
> Is it under a different thread?  Is it too much trouble to resend?  Ach!  This is awful. 


-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ