Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117200048@inmet>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 08:22:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200048
Posted: Thu Sep 18 08:22:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:17:28 EDT
References: <665@mit-vax.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:mit-vax.UUCP:-66500:inmet:117200048:000:1513
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 18 08:22:00 1986


[oaf@mit-vax.UUCP ]
>    I will not accuse Brian Mahoney of having the scholarliness of Ri-
>chard   Carnes,
Accuse? Since when is scholarliness a vice? R. Carnes may have his
imperfections, but his habit of systematic reading is an asset.

> the crude  cynicism   of Oded  Feingold,
Oh, that's all right; rather cute even. Your main fault  is  that
you prefer to discuss personalities, not issues.

> the fanatic liberalism of Tim Sevener
We certainly need that point of view represented,
and he is a near-perfect representative.

> the blind dogmaticism of Jan Wasilewski
'Y' at the end, please. I am blindly dogmatic about that, at least.
Y is my favorite letter, 'cos WHY is my favorite word. E.g.:

WHY must dogmatism be called dogmaticism? 
If this goes on, someone will top you with dogmaticalism,
and then dogmaticalicism...

> , or  conversely the moral turpitude of Ken Arndt.
This raises some questions, too: why should immorality be seen as
the  "converse"  of  dogmatism? Then again, what moral turpitude?
There's not much that Ken and I agree on; his style  is  all  his
own;  and  he's teased many people on the net, and got as good as
he gave; his taste, his sanity, and his existence have  all  been
challenged  -  but  I've not seen the slightest cause to question
his moral uprightness. Which is no one's business, anyway.

> ...
You did not need all that mud-slinging to pay a somewhat
diluted compliment to Tim Maroney, did you? His spelling,
BTW, has improved drastically.

		Jan Wasilewsky