Xref: utzoo news.groups:16675 talk.religion.newage:5468
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Updated Call for Votes: talk.religion.pagan
Message-ID: <9769@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 21 Jan 90 13:11:36 GMT
References: <130363@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 47

>>>>        The moderation is only included because that seems to
>>>>        be the _only_ way to ensure that off-charter attempts
>>>>        to prosyletize are not posted.

In article <961@thor.wright.EDU> spotter@eve.UUCP (Steve Potter) writes:
>>I'm afraid I have to agree with Tim on this one.  It does clearly state
>>that moderation is only to be used "to ensure that off-charter attempts
>>to prosyletize are not posted."  That sounds exactly like a clear
>>statement of the use of moderation.

In article <130363@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes:
>	Prosyltizing is off-charter, yet it doesn't say that only off-charter
>messages of the type 'prosyletizing' will be weeded out.  Prosyletizing is
>an example of of an off-charter subject matter that would be moderatated.

I guess the problem is that you can't read.  Look at the damn quote.  It
says that the "only" reason for moderation is "to ensure that off-charter
attempts to proselytize are not posted".  "The moderation is only included
because" of that, and nothing else.

>	If you have a rule A, and rule B is a subset of rule A,
>	then if you apply rule A and rule B, 
>	then you end up with rule A being the final rule (since B is only
>	a subset of A anyway).
>
>	This is basic logic or set theory.  

No kidding; it's also sophistry that has nothing to do with the point
at hand.  Try basic grammar and basic definitions, not contrived
quasi-mathematical arguments.  The would-be moderator was at pains to
narrow the scope of the moderation, and did so explicitly through the
unambiguous term "only".

>	To give another example.  If you have a law saying murder is illegal,
>and the law state that this is to prevent people from shooting each other,
>that doesn't mean that killing via a knife is acceptable.

If the law reads that "This law is only created because it seems to be
the only way to get people to stop killing each other with guns", then
it would in fact be considered to apply only to guns.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

It is not only fallacious to ignore points, or to answer them solely
with preconceived and contrived arguments:  it is also very, very
rude.  Someone who behaves in this way has only themselves to blame if
things become heated.