Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!stiatl!meo
From: meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM
Message-ID: <8826@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 2 Feb 90 18:21:06 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..."
Lines: 19

In article <3311@iitmax.IIT.EDU> demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes:
|I have come to the same conclusion as Robert.  The only change that has
|occurred in the sci vs. talk discussion since it began is that, in general,
|the proponents of talk have descended deeper into the depths of hostility and
|vulgarity.  And, contrary to what some may think, the method of arguing
|_is_ indicative of the content.  The talk proponets continue to hurl
|invectives as their main method of argumentation, and scorn we sci proponents
|for failing to fully prove our points, as if we had to footnote each 
|sentence with a philosophic treatise, a delimitation of context, and an
|answer to any possible objections, while all they have to do is scream like
|children that we have not done so.

That could be said about you, as well, sir. And your kith & kin in this
group. While this mayt seem to fall under the auspices of rational
selfishness, (1) everyone who disagrees with you isn't as terminally
stupid as you seem to think they are, and (2) whatever it is, objective
(by ANY legitimate definition) it's not.

-Miles O'bjective