Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!rcb
From: rcb@fortune.UUCP (Robert Binstock)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Rent control - (nf)
Message-ID: <3324@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-May-84 15:24:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.3324
Posted: Wed May 16 15:24:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 17-May-84 03:42:23 EDT
References: <1400@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 16

>>[list of anecdotal arguments used in favor of rent control
   -- objections to same]

All of those arguments were by me, and I plead guilty as charged.

But what about the anecdotal arguments used by the anti-rent
control people, like urchins kicking holes in fences, and the crime
rate in Cambridge is "sky-high", and "It's impossible to find an
apartment in Cambridge," etc.?

Why do you only cite pro-rent control arguments in your criticism?
Pretty sneaky!  If you want to talk about logical argument, fine.  If 
you want to take sides, fine.  But not both at once!  At the very least 
you should post two articles, one for each role.

Yours for honesty in argument,      Bob Binstock