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!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ?
Message-ID: <7800738@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 11:32:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800738
Posted: Mon Nov 25 11:32:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:14:33 EST
References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP>
Lines: 55
Nf-ID: #R:inmet:7800672:inmet:7800738:000:2218
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 25 11:32:00 1985


[Jim Balter (ima!jim)]
>>>> [I posted an economic statistic about women's jobs and wages
>>>> with the title "Equality through Reaganomics ? "]

[Mike Huybensz]
>>>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly
>>>hidden in the title.  Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your
>>>reasoned conclusion from this quotation.

>>Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu-
>>lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*.

>I love this "may be".  It is a true statement.
>So would "may not be".  [examples]

"may be", in context, means "plausible, and worth examination".
*That is what I posted it for*. 

>I forget the name of this little rhetorical technique, but the intent
>is to mislead by insinuation.  Dangerous little minds will take your
>your empty statement as a *conclusion*.  You are waging a disinformation
>campaign.

*You* know all about *my* intent. Good for you.  Let  me  make  a
guess at yours. It was not my carefully guarded *conclusion* that
sent you flaming. It was the little *fact*. You are  afraid  *it*
will  lead  "little  minds"  off the straight and narrow. You are
waging a censorship campaign.

>>Of course there are other factors involved [...]
>>That is why I added the (?).

"Science begins and ends with a question".

>Like in the "Is it possible ...?" case that is ignored by small minds
>who are just looking for something that agrees with their beliefs.
>And surely you weren't aiming your comments at people you knew wouldn't
>buy them? 

I addressed them to the large minds, to give them something  that
perhaps  *disagrees*  with  their  beliefs.  You know, people big
enough to *change their mind* once in a while. Better still,
the discussion might help me change *mine* . Economists were the
people I mostly hoped to draw out.

I am selling nothing. I say what I think, especially if it is un-
popular.  I  can afford to, not having a herd of "small minds" to
keep to a party line.
This, apparently, is all you think about. Pity.
I seek to enlighten, with facts and ideas. You strive to control,
suppress,  and  direct, for everyone's good, to be sure. I do not
wish you luck.

		Jan Wasilewsky