Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site convex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!holt
From: holt@convex.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: fat at the recent L.A. Con II
Message-ID: <34900032@convex.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 16:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: convex.34900032
Posted: Mon Sep 24 16:26:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:30:47 EDT
References: <1039@shark.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:shark:-103900:convex:34900032:000:1133
Nf-From: convex!holt    Sep 24 15:26:00 1984

> /* Written  6:27 pm  Sep 21, 1984 by brl-tgr!wmartin in convex:net.flame */
> The only valuable part of a human being is the brain. Your attitude toward
> another human should be based ONLY on the quality of their brain, and how
> it is used.
>
> Will Martin

This is just as bigoted as saying that "the only valuable part of a human
being is the body."  Let's face it, a human being is made up of both
a brain and a body.  Some humans have great brains, others have great bodies,
and most have neither.  To reduce social value to the quality of a brain is
impossible.  The ability to accurately quantify brain "quality" does not 
exist.  

It seems that most people disagree with your theory anyway.  Witness the
fascination the public has for the Olympics.  There, the limits of the human
body are tested.  Public interest in championship chess, or other mental
competition is much, much less intense.

By the way, "quality" is usually defined as "performance to standards".  What
and whose standards are you measuring brains against anyway?

				Dave Holt
				Convex Computer Corp.
				{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt