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