Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Rent control - (nf)
Message-ID: <1419@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-May-84 00:32:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1419
Posted: Sat May 19 00:32:09 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 21-May-84 03:17:57 EDT
Lines: 29

#R:inmet:3900117:inmet:3900119:000:1189
inmet!nrh    May 17 19:34:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.flame / fortune!rcb /  3:24 pm  May 16, 1984
>
>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
>----------
>

I did not cite the specious anti-rent-control arguments-by-example,
(honestly didn't think of them) and I should have.  Although I stand by
my article as correct, I agree it would have been stronger had I showed
examples of foolishness from both sides.

That said, it sounds to me as if you're arguing that I'm being dishonest
by not citing both halves of the argument.  Biased, yes.  I agree.  I
thought of adding a line like:  "by the way, in case you haven't
noticed, I'm AGAINST rent control", but thought that it'd be heavy
handed.  Dishonest?  I didn't think so.  Certainly because I had no
thought of any other article (but the one I quoted from you), I can
plead innocent of knowing dishonesty.

It WAS pretty sneaky.  I didn't even think of that.  You are 
dead right to point it out.