Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: A Howard-Torek Compromise
Message-ID: <28200187@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 00:34:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200187
Posted: Tue Oct 22 00:34:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 20:36:12 EDT
References: <1427@hound.UUCP>
Lines: 6
Nf-ID: #R:hound:-142700:inmet:28200187:000:353
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Oct 22 00:34:00 1985


Love it!  :-)  Of course, Paul and I have wandered (at least, I have 
wandered) pretty far from the original controversy, which had to do 
with "base" reasons, or causes, for believing in things.  I think we'd
both agree that POLICIES must be rationally defended (even if I think of
reason as a derived value and Paul thinks of it as a wired-in one).