Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!newton2
From: newton2@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: More defense of Ken Arndt [there is no defense]
Message-ID: <555@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 04:27:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.555
Posted: Tue Sep 18 04:27:42 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:33:18 EDT
References: <3619@decwrl.UUCP> <1577@proper.UUCP>, <152@CSL-Vax.ARPA>
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 17

There seem to be two schools of response to Ken Arndt's remarkably
effective provocations- one is thoughtful and sometimes includes rueful
acknowledgment of his sometimes-telling sallies, as well as rising
manfully (whoops..) to the forensic challenge.

	The other is response is typically just wild-eyed apoplectic
maniacal sputtering.
~e
	I guess I prefer the former style, both intrinsically and because it
inspires more confidence in the worth of the rejoinder.

	I hope and trust that Ken Arndt (curiously well-read in a 
[pardon me] discipline he rejects) still lurks beyond the campfires
of the newsgroup and will continue his occasional hyena raids. Maybe
if folks toss him some meatier rhetorical bones he can be domesticated
into MOTSS best friend over time. At least he writes amusingly,
shockingly and well.