After a lengthy debate today about whether to use 'waiter' exclusively or also to use 'waitress', nothing was resolved. I think we agreed that we'll have to resort to throwing things.
In other matters, I wanted to apologize for not responding to some excellent comments to previous threads. I didn't have access to the internet for much of the weekend and spent all of Sunday building a bookcase. It turned out rather well, I think. It's 7 feet long and a bit over 4' in height. It hasn't collapsed and the shelves haven't buckled under the weight. There was very little planning that went into it apart from measuring the space it was to occupy and deciding that 7x5 would look weird and 7x3 would be impractical. A woman at Wendy's offered to buy it off of the back of the truck. I think I've found a new way to moonlight.
Let me clarify something from the mentalism post. I think I should have said something different. First, I think that if you are going to reject scepticism, it's better to say that some propositions about the external world can be known directly and without inference. Second, what worries me about mentalism is that if someone accepts ET, mentalism, and thinks that we can have non-inferential knowledge of the external world they can do so only if they reject the claim that non-inferential knowledge suffices for a proposition's inclusion in someone's evidence. Not only does that seem bad, but it seems you can't say that there are pieces of evidence that we have as a result of perception beyond those that we have on the basis of introspection. But, it seems that perception ought to give us reasons and pieces of evidence that introspection cannot.