Where is everyone?

Just wondering how my fellow Denver Seminary PR students are doing. I am just auditing NT611 (i.e. Greek exegesis of Romans) with Blomberg this semester. This is the closest thing I can manage to taking a semester off.

Since I missed out on Epistemology with Obitts, I read Pojman last month to try to catch up. I still have a lot of questions though. I will try to blog on those when I get a chance. One thing I would like to get your take on is the question of what a proposition is. My thinking is that it is something like a linuistic construct (a declarative sentence) that describes a state of affairs. There is no causal relationship between the proposition and the state of affairs, merely a "descriptive" one (for want of a better term). But does a proposition have ontological status itself? For example, see Moreland and DeWeese's comment:

"conceptual structures that exist independently of anyone's thoughts. ... Further, propositions may be the contents of the thoughts of many different people at different times. Propositions have the property of being true or false. A sentence is true or false derivatively, depending on the truth-value of the proposition that the sentence instantiates. Since the correspondence theory of truth is formulated in terms of propositions, not sentences, arguments such as Kenneson's are simply irrelevant. (Reclaiming the Center, pp. 87-88)

One example of someone taking DRG et al (Carson, Moreland, etc) to task over this is Steve B's blog, which I started reading earlier this year. He is a PhD student at Princeton, and has a posting about DRG's ideas here:

http://harbinger.blogs.com/harbinger/2005/01/on_unicorns_and.html

Now, I think Steve is deliberately trying to be inflammatory and humorous, but reading his blog (esp the comments that it generated) and the
interaction between DRG and Scott McKnight at http://jesuscreed.blogspot.com/2005/07/post-fall-theology.html makes me suspect that someone is missing the point. But who? I just don't want it to be me.