Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: What passes for argument here
Message-ID: <1774@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 00:29:55 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1774
Posted: Tue Dec 11 00:29:55 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:29:16 EST
References: <1767@umcp-cs.UUCP> <20980025@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 17

In article <20980025@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:

>Thank you, Charles, for completely failing to refer to any of my points in
>your supposed refutation.  I was afraid we would be stuck with rational
>argument here.

[I should remark that this is the entire article except the signature.]

Ah, a perfect example of context-free natural language!  Not to mention
almost content-free.

Both Rich Rosen and Tim have developed this marvelous style of argument,
the likes of which I've never seen before.  It consists of feeding words
to one's opponent, then claiming on the basis of those words that his
arguments are not relevant.

Charley Wingate