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