**From:** Brian M. Scott

**Message:** 60319

**Date:** 2008-09-25

At 4:16:58 AM on Thursday, September 25, 2008, tgpedersen

wrote:

[...]

clearly and explicitly more than once, I conclude that you

are deliberately lying or incapable of understanding, and in

either case a waste of my time.

wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"[...]

> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 10:59:35 AM on Wednesday, September 24, 2008, tgpedersen

>> wrote:

>> So you've paid no attention to the fact that pre-nasalIt's been discussed in this thread.

>> raising is a natural phenomenon that occurs elsewhere; I

>> know of no evidence that pre-lateral raising of /e/ is

>> natural.

> I hadn't thought of that one.

[...]

>>> Nonsense. As you should know, if you have a set you canI said no such thing. And since I have now made this point

>>> define it either by enumeration or by a defining function.

>>> There can be several of those. You use as generating

>>> function the rules you root for, and then you claim it's

>>> just a description.

>> Because it is, of course. A set, mathematical or otherwise,

>> can have more than one description. The description may

>> suggest a particular construction of the set, but it does

>> not in general *entail* a particular construction.

> But that's what you are using in your reasoning. The set

> can be generated this way, therefore it *was* generated

> this way.

clearly and explicitly more than once, I conclude that you

are deliberately lying or incapable of understanding, and in

either case a waste of my time.