Path: utzoo!hoptoad!well!pan
From: pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: tell us please
Message-ID: <5663@well.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 88 06:01:49 GMT
References: <5540@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <5650@well.UUCP> <11188@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 26

In article <11188@ut-sally.UUCP> turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes:
>Gautier's posting contains no libertarian allusions.

Ah, yes, this particular post did not contain any libertarian allusions.
You will pardon me for extrapolating on Mr. Gautier's previous postings.
If he is not a libertarian, than I do indeed owe him an apology.

>Your criticism, intended as a cheap shot at a broad genre of social
>thought, is no better than his. Should we consider it an
>illustration of the shallowpated nature of the social philosophy
>you prefer? Or can we agree that this is not the way to criticize
>social philosophy?
>
My criticism was not so much at any broad gnere of social thought (this would
imply some depth in libertarian analysis of social issues) but rather at the
anti-intellectual nature of Mr. Gautier's taunt.  You can think what you will
of my own views.  If you will read Mr. Gautier's question again, you might
understand my response.  It may be no better than his.  If so, it is no better
or worse than your own.
 

-- 
"To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer."
                                     - Robert Sheckley

   pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).