Warrigal wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing." >>> I retract this. I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing.", barring Murphy. >>> >>> --Warrigal, attempting to change the truth again >> Why barring Murphy, exactly? > > He judged that it might not be an entity.
And rightly so. "It" might be "the king of England", for all we know.
