Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxu!klick From: klick@ihuxu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Resurrection proof et al Message-ID: <176@ihuxu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Jun-83 11:13:28 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxu.176 Posted: Mon Jun 6 11:13:28 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jun-83 22:47:14 EDT Lines: 15 (This was originally submitted on 6/2, but apparently never got onto the net.) Since many people have indicated a complete lack of understanding of the point of my previous submission, I see that subtleties of argument are wasted here. My point was simply that it is fallacious to use a phrase from one country's legal system as a logical basis for an argument, as Tim Maroney did. Legal systems do not define logic. [To cbostrum: Being insulting because you do not understand something is very childish.] Vickie Klick Bell Labs ihuxu!klick