Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!des
From: des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <3669@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 19 Jan 90 11:19:48 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <twwells.1990Jan14.142457.19621> <9001142226.AA23247@apee.ogi.edu> <1990Jan17.075631.853@twwells.com> <R951S=3xds13@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 11

In article <R951S=3xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> 	"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
>> 	crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
>> 	do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_
>
>If this be objectivism, I must say that the majority of folks pushing for
>the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are
>assertions.

that appeared to be the general concensus on eunet 6 months ago
(-: the proof of the above is left as an exercise for the reader :-)