Re: Innocence & harmless weapons (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> Subject: Re: Innocence & harmless weapons
>
> > Whose side of the truth?
> 
> That was a capital "T", bub.  Truth doesn't have sides.  (Think
> of it as an archetype.)

Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that
there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it. That is  unless you are
attempting to claim absolute omnipotence on the point of determination.

> > To be honest I was surprised by your simplistic responce.
> 
> That was a question mark, bub.  It wasn't an answer, it was
> a question.  Hey, the devil is in the details, gang.  Too bad
> modern schools teach "self-esteem" instead of reading, writing
> and rhetoric.  (Spelling wouldn't hurt either.)

Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument.


                                            Jim Choate

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> >
> > That was a capital "T", bub.  Truth doesn't have sides.  (Think
> > of it as an archetype.)
> 
> Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that
> there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it.


Hm.  So you are using the implied premise, Jim, that if there
were an absolute 'Truth' that you would know it?  I find that 
somewhat amusing.  :-)


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMaV7j0jbHy8sKZitAQGP2wMAq9MTFw9Mamepgp58aTRjae2VqFDDJfVn
78LdugL+f6Kd0X4I5nfWs6EEKlItchtmCFxu2sUGKL55igk1D+z+hCfgZflWUocU
mECzMzX3Al3HinsunA3NBW4zY61jpCuW
=Wnod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 24 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that
> there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it. 

It isn't obvious that we DON"T agree.  It was still a question.
Actually, I rather fancied Bell and May's responses.  To the
extent we do disagree reflects in no way on the Truth, only in
our abilities to determine what Truth is.  Again, think of it
as an archetype or reality not as a popularity contest.

> That is  unless you are attempting to claim absolute omnipotence
> on the point of determination. 

Nope, not me.  Hell, I don't even claim *partial* omnipotence.
You really have to pay attention to those details.  Why are you
having so much trouble understanding the question mark?
 
> Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument.

Thanks, but you got it wrong again.  Yes, there was an indirect
(and apparently valid) ad hominem, but apparently you do not know
what a straw man is.  For your edification, your out-of-left-field
suggestion that my discussion of Truth represents some claim of 
omnipotence on my part is clearly a straw man (and an implied ad
hominem, for good measure).


 S a n d y

...WHAT IS TRUTH?
	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Fri, 24 May 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>  S a n d y
> 
> ...WHAT IS TRUTH?

	Reality viewed through the lenses of Dogma.

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com

At 6:45 PM  -0400 5/24/96, snow wrote:
> 	Reality viewed through the lenses of Dogma.

The Words Speak You
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Murk is Darts <er, scratch that...>

Can we stop this crap, now?

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga






-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"If they could 'just pass a few more laws',
  we would all be criminals."    --Vinnie Moscaritolo
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/