Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.5; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap From: bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: re: Collection of tax money, and some questions Message-ID: <403@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 00:35:45 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.403 Posted: Fri Mar 2 00:35:45 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Feb-84 00:25:52 EST Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA Lines: 35 From the pen of Phil Polli: >This response causes me to think about a problem we've been having >in net.politics discussions on various topics lately. Namely, how >do you respond to an article which makes absolutely no sense >whatsover? In my opinion, the article to which you were referring has more validity than many of the articles of yours. While some of the phrases of that article were (in my opinion) exaggerations, the meaning seemed clear enough to me (exaggerations are not new to net.politics). If you really felt that the article was a non sequiter (sp?), you should reexamine it and try to see what the author was trying to say. If, on the other hand, you disagree with the article, please say so without being so wordy. >Should we just write filters to discard articles from authors who >are clearly off their rockers? Does this mean that you are interested only in authors who agree with you/ with whom you can agree? >Are these [uiucdcs] real people or is there just a computer >program down there generating these articles? (A failed AI >experiment perhaps?) Statements such as these give the impression of close-mindedness. They serve little purpose except to generate reciprocal insults and (perhaps) to give the author the feeling that he's being "witty". Do you really feel that taxes are not at all coercive? Will you consider the question, or will you just file it under "filtrate"? Sam Hall, UCB ucbvax!bitmap@ucbtopaz