Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM Message-ID: <0XH10JFxds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 2 Feb 90 23:15:22 GMT References: <8826@stiatl.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <3311@iitmax.IIT.EDU> demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes: |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. It is relevent to note, here, that you do seem to be using words in a way contrary to normal English usage... for example: by claiming to be basing your philosophy on reason then using such emotionally laden invectives as "evil" to describe your opponents and their arguments. Thus it seems not unreasonable to expect you to define your terms, or if you're not willing to do so at least to restrict yourself to using words in such a way that your arguments may be understood by those not thoroughly schooled in the particular language of your discipline. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'