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