Xref: utzoo soc.college:2140 comp.edu:1789
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!dykimber
From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.edu
Subject: Re: Student and Course Integrity
Message-ID: <5197@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 7 Jan 89 18:30:14 GMT
References: <1217.23C35B05@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG> <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com> <5170@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <9287@ut-emx.UUCP>
Reply-To: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 33

In article <9287@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>In article <5170@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes:
>> In the
>> meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in
>> accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts.  
>
>Have we met, Dan?

No.  Did you read my message?  I don't claim to know the first thing about
your thoughts.  I don't claim to know if your message represent your real
opinions.  I don't even claim to know if you're a real person.  (I don't
actually care.)  I do claim that the sentiments you expressed are shallow.
I suppose you didn't read my rationale.  The sentiments you demonstrated
same phrasing as I originally used), I contend, are shallow.  I, unlike you,
never called anyone else shallow except by implication, and that implication
I left open-ended, according to each reader's preference.  The fact that
you seem to have found the implication doesn't mean that I've accused you
of having shallow thoughts.  I think my assertion is appropriate again,
however.
    Incidentally, whether or not I am technically guilty of what you are
claiming, it is again fairly clear from what I wrote that I at least
avoided a parallel construction, and in the right direction, indicating
that I wanted to make a distinction between the two.  You apparently don't
think the distinction was made, but to most readers, the intention was, I'm
sure, obvious - to point out that you don't really know anything about the
thoughts of someone from their postings, you can only make vague inferences.
You, however, apparently chose to ignore my intention again and make a
(foundless, as far as I can tell) attack not on the meaning but on some
chance pattern in the surface form.  (If the word "apparently" isn't enough
in the previous sentence, replace it with "by some indicators of appearance,
which though unreliable are all I have to go on")

                                                     -Dan