Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: BEING RESPONSIBLE
Message-ID: <891@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Jul-85 20:18:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.891
Posted: Sun Jul 28 20:18:57 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 00:50:52 EDT
References: <2471@ut-sally.UUCP> <1660@hao.UUCP>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 18

There's no need to argue about whether a person can exercise
complete control over their emotions.  An experiment would serve.
(Pardon the scientific bias!)  Solicit a volunteer from among
the "self-control" camp to be the subject.  Allow the other
side a few weeks to find out or fabricate all they can about
the subject.  Then assemble some of the subject's family,
employers and friends and recite the findings or fabrications.
Does the subject choose not to feel embarassed, outraged, or
indignant?  This would be evidence for the "total-self-control"
point of view.  It would be even stronger evidence if the
subject were not a volunteer but instead the experiment were
done on a surprise basis.

_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt

A rational response is ALWAYS possible, but is it always appropriate?