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.