Revision as of 07:07, 10 July 2005 editBanno (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,532 edits →Too feeble???← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:27, 10 July 2005 edit undoBanno (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,532 edits →Too feeble???Next edit → | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the ] to float above the sea of theist ] in ]. | Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the ] to float above the sea of theist ] in ]. | ||
:The definition offered is blatantly POV - see ]] 07:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | :The definition offered is blatantly POV - see ]] 07:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | ||
:The corespondence theory is one amongst many - your definition is POV. ] 07:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:27, 10 July 2005
Why is True auto redirecting to Truth? Might want a disambigous page w/ also links to True in terms of other things, (I came looking for Computer Science related info) --ORBIT 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Redirect
The definition given here is far too feeble. ... Banno 21:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Too feeble???
Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the buoyancy to float above the sea of theist obscurantism in Truth.