Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.research
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Message-ID: <37@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 10:11:35 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.37
Posted: Mon Nov 25 10:11:35 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 20:54:32 EST
References: <384@ukc.UUCP> <13300008@uiucdcsb>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 17

> The unwaivering adherence to the Presidents views, without the tolerence and
> the willingness of allowing dissenting views is indicative of such a culture.
> Red Baiting, that is, claiming that all pro-freeze, anti-defense-growth groups
> are funded by the U.S.S.R, is, in my mind, an example of that introlerence.

And attributing viewpoints that they never maintained to one's
opponents is an example of argument from an irrational position.
"All" such movements funded by the USSR?  Who would be so stupid
as to maintain that?  For that matter, what evidence do you have
for the "unwavering adherence to the President's views"?  It is
certainly possible for thinking persons to support a strong
defense without necessarily even knowing what the President's
views are, let alone unwaveringly adhering to them!

Perhaps what your opponents are intolerant of is irrationality..

What does this discussion have to do with research?