Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!Pamela Troy
From: Pamela@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Bible & Const. reply promised-answers to questions.
Message-ID: <5572@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Jul-83 18:48:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5572
Posted: Sat Jul 16 18:48:32 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jul-83 21:39:00 EDT
References: rabbit.1683
Lines: 54


    This has to be a first.  I have gotten two replies to an article,
both of which are from people who are on the same side of the issue
that I am, both of which castigate me, and neither of which I can
understand.  Isn't netting wonderful?  The first of this pair of
articles was from Steve Bellovin, accusing me of factual errors, but
not saying what they were.  Steve just presented a lot of facts, none
of which contradict any of my assertions.  Clarification will, I hope,
be forthcoming.

    The second of this pair is from rabbit!jj.  I really don't know
what he (?) is talking about here -- I'll reprint the offending
paragraphs here, and if anyone can tell me what it is that jj is
talking about, I'd appreciate your letting me in on the secret.

            If you think that you should consider an article's
        content regardless of its style of argument, you're
        terribly nieve [sic -- read naive].  Please read your
        favorite historical commentary, especially the part
        about the rise and fall of tyrants.  Any writing that
        is tailored to deliberately use emotion to sway the
        reader is by definition both suspect and biased.  If I
        were to post an article using the same tactics,
        stating that those who used religion as an excuse for
        evil were hypocrits, (sp, I know) but that those
        hackers who used their computer skill to steal did not
        believe that they [sic -- missing were] evil because
        their beliefs had no moral code, thus we should not
        trust hackers, who have no moral code because they are
        hackers, you would most certainly object violently.
        There is exactly no difference between that argument
        and the argument that Mr. Dubuq  made.

            I consider your response, then, either foolish or
        (more subtly than most) prejudiced.

    Look, people, if you are going to accuse me of something, tell me
what it is, in nice clear terms, like I do when I accuse someone of
something.  What jj seems to be saying is that because I did not
castigate Paul for using emotionality in his arguments, then I am
prejudiced against Paul.  Say what?  In any case, the record will show
that Paul uses emotion less often than jj, with his insults (I was
shocked to learn that I was "nieve" and foolish) and repetitions of
"I'm sorry I ever read this newsgroup", with the obvious corollary
that he is better than everyone else in the group.  Won't someone
explain to me what's going on?

______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney

duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill