Kelley:
> i pretty much agree with ken. very few criticisms have been raised that
> make any sense. i post at length explaining it all and not one of you has
> bothered to engage what i've written. ...
Well, I gave it a light try, but y'all Habermas fans seem pretty impervious. That might seem like "not bothering to engage" from the inside. If you really, really wanted to be understood, you'd want to overcome that by understanding, but what we have here seems to be a debate, that is, an exchange in which no one understands anything and the only thing which passes back and forth are moves in the game. That's okay, but it's not the thing you seem to be claiming to promulgate. Or do I have that wrong?