Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Use of Logical Terminology
Message-ID: <487@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 11:35:35 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.487
Posted: Mon Mar  5 11:35:35 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Mar-84 08:30:41 EST
References: <872@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Central Services Org., Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 42

I made it quite clear that my article on terminology had very little substance
of interest to a group on religion.  I admit that.  I said that in the article.
And I made it clear (at least I thought that I did) that my decrying your
bogus use of logical terms in place of logical thought had no impact whatever
on your point of view.  The purpose of the article was to point out (most
specifically to you!) that all this talk of logic hasn't been backed up by
any actual logic.  You have a point of view.  You should feel at ease in
expressing it.  But when someone repeatedly asks you questions in response
to your expressed ideas and you fail to provide a direct answer, how long can
you expect them to NOT attack you in an ad hominem fashion.  The "attacks"
(by several people in this newsgroup) have apparently been intended as a
form of prodding, sort of saying "Enough bull**** already!!  Let's hear an
answer!!".  At least that's been my intention.  The idea is not to call your
opinions worthless, but to express a desire to see you back them up.  THAT'S
what logical discussion is all about.   Resorting to calling my words
"hasty generalizations" when the evidence to support my statements (and not
the generalizations you assumed that I was making) were evident in Collins'
own articles is pretty worthless.  Though some people have come right out
and called Collins a number of uncomplimentary things, the original point (in
response to someone who criticized those who made jokes about Satin) was that
Collins had an article to work from that spelled Satan correctly, he chose
to use his spelling, and he has certainly shown that he is a follower of an
evangelist.  You claimed that I had no proof that he followed an evangelist,
that we were assuming things about him based on his flagrant misspellings,
when such things were clear.  He clearly did not know how to spell the word
Satan.  This implies that he has not read the book that he believes in (if
the word appears clearly in that book), and, in turn, that his evangelist
friend does not require him to have read that book.  Where's the generalizing?

> (Oh no!  Someone on the net has endeavored to become more educated! Horrors!
> Quick, do something before he starts making sense.  Poison the well! :-) 

Contrary to what you may believe, I applaud your foray into learning about
logic (But I have no fears that you will "start making sense" :-).  In fact,
I hope that you apply it to your general concepts of religious thinking, and
that you will get back to us with the result...

Let's get back to discussing things.   (Don't take the "making sense" remark
too seriously.  You set yourself up and I just couldn't resist.)
-- 
Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed...
	Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr