Re: ??

I think I agree - assuming I have understood, at least vaguely, what 
Roger is trying to say.  At least I don't see any real problem and hav 
never had any difficulty applying these laws.  JE

Am 17.02.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Peter Eidt:
>
> Maybe this  sort of contributions is the main reason for such low 
> traffic here ...
>
> Peter
>
> *von *Roger Pewick
>
> For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth 
> correcting in TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now 
> worth discussing are ambiguities.  And now it is pointed out that low 
> traffic is a consequence of no ambiguities.  My assessment is 
> different: low traffic is actually a consequence of too many 
> ambiguities…so many that it is too overwhelming.  Overwhelming?  How 
> so?  Well, since there is no hope that discussing ambiguities will get 
> them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking people have better 
> things to do.
>
> Take 44C for example. This law must be the most clear and concise in 
> the book. Not so.  Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and 
> sinker…...  And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since 
> 44C is so important?  And for those that can't let go, the big 
> question makes me wonder why 64B exists.  But since 64B is there- I 
> wonder why a COOT is penalized but the failure to perform the most 
> important obligation is not.  And since 64B conveys that it is justice 
> to not penalize the failure to perform the most important obligation: 
> there is merely the smallest utility from the presence of 64C- after 
> all, since justice has already been done via 64B, there is no more 
> justice to be had, is there?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml