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. Dubuqmade. 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