Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-hermes.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!daemon From: daemon@mit-hermes.ARPA (The devil himself) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: philosophy Message-ID: <2442@mit-hermes.ARPA> Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 17:15:46 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-herm.2442 Posted: Thu Aug 1 17:15:46 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 21:51:33 EDT Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA Lines: 43 From ROBCHRJ%YALEVMX.BITNET@Berkeley Thu Aug 1 17:15:25 1985 Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA (ucb-vax.arpa.ARPA) by MIT-HERMES.ARPA (4.12/4.8) id AA08579; Thu, 1 Aug 85 17:15:25 edt Received: from ucbjade.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (ucbjade.ARPA) by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.3) id AA02892; Thu, 1 Aug 85 12:16:03 pdt Received: from UCBVAX.ARPA by ucbjade.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (4.19/4.36.1) id AA29315; Thu, 1 Aug 85 12:05:01 pdt Date: Thu, 1 Aug 85 12:04:55 pdt From: ROBCHRJ%YALEVMX.BITNET@Berkeley Message-Id: <8508011905.AA29315@ucbjade.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Apparently-To: Subject: Re: an "irrelevant lie" References: <1213@jsuvax.UUCP>, <243@frog.UUCP> >> The libertarian assents to claim (2) -- and so is also an 'incompatibilist' >> -- but rejects claim (1) in favor of an acausal will, or something of the >> sort. [MOODY] > Please stick to claims that are relevant and that you can suport. Perhaps > some libertarians fit your claim, but I don't, and having met many > libertarians I still can say I haven't met one who does. I did not observe > anyone who brought up libertarians or libertarianism during the argument - > on free will. Whatever your purpose was, it could not have been honorable, > or anything or the sort. The rest of your posting did not deserve your > drivel. [HUDSON] Forgive me for stating the obvious, but Moody was not discussing libertarians of the political variety. He was using the word 'libertarian' to refer to people who believe in free will--that is, liberty. Considering the context of the discussion, his usage was not entirely improper; but evidently people should avoid it in the future, as it may lead to confusion again. My advice to David Hudson: think first, insult later. If you had paid more attention, it would have been clear that Moody did not intend to say anything about you or your political allies. Chris Roberson Calhoun College, Yale University If our behavior is strict, we do not need fun.