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