Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <1990Jan17.081149.1051@twwells.com>
Date: 17 Jan 90 08:11:49 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9673@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> <9682@hoptoad.uucp>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 26

In article <9682@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
: >In article <9673@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
: >: No.  First, it's a fan club.  Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.
: >
: In article <1990Jan14.191035.20625@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com
: (T. William Wells) writes:
: >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
: >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
: >all counts.
:
: Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that
: leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that
: it's basically a Rand fan club.

One of my points of contention with my fellow Objectivists is
that I advocate trying to understanding other's points of view.

I've added to my understanding that you refer to calling a
bullshitter a bullshitter as "quasi-religious didacticism".

Oh, BTW, you really should go look up "didactic". A counter-flame
hardly counts as didactic.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com