Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: The next stage of handgun regulation - (nf)
Message-ID: <2107@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Oct-83 11:23:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2107
Posted: Mon Oct 24 11:23:09 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Oct-83 00:38:33 EDT
References: <80@tekcad.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 32



Oh, Frank! <sigh>  I'm really disappointed.

I'm talking about dishonesty.  You're talking about being human.

Using emotional arguments that are represented as logical
arguments is dishonest.  Simply dishonest, ill intended,
bad, evil, foolish, stupid, what have you.

Dishonesty has no relationship to being human.  Certainly
human beings have a need for feelings and emotions.  (Pain, even,
I suppose.)  If you want to say, "here's an emotional
justification", go ahead. I'll probably read it and flame it. 
<What else is new?>  I might even surprise you by flaming
it emotionally. <What?  Me?  No!  NEVER!!! [and I'm never
sarcastic, either.]>

If you want to make an emotional argument, go ahead.  Just don't lie
to me and claim that it's a rational argument.  Do it the honest way
and I will at least assume you're honest, something I certainly
don't assume when debating with a lot of netnews participants.

Go ahead, write emotional flames <just like the one you
wrote attacking me>. 

See how I reply to them.  <Ahhh.  Self reference.  How satisfying.>
-- 
 O   o   From the pyrolagnic keyboard of
   ~              rabbit!jj
 -v-v-
 \^_^/   (pyrolagnic- from pyro<=>fire and lagnic<=>eating.)