lvc@cbscd5.UUCP (10/20/83)
In his response to Paul Torek Tom Craver writes:
"The obvious implication of this statement, and I cannot believe you
intended it otherwise, is that I practice an evasive form of argument,
rather than trying to address the issues. In fact, what I often try to
do is show you logical conclusions of what you say that you have overlooked.
Occasionally I may miss some point you present, but I do *NOT* intentionally
evade an argument that I cannot answer."
Tom, your record in dealing with Dan Mc Kiernan does not live up to this
standard given what you have written (and I have seen) on netnews. Or it
could be that you think he is engaging in character assination and therefore
you refuse to deal with him. Mc Kiernan perceives you as ingaging in
character assaination so the tone of his last letter may have seemed harsh.
It is certainly in the realm of possibility that you are doing the necessary
background work before you write to him but you have not indicated this.
As I wrote before, I am not going to be Mc Kiernans typist. The response
necessary to refute your position on teleology alone would be too long
for me to want to type. If you want to communicate with him you will have
to do it through the postal mail service.
It is one thing to be able to refute the philosophical equivalents of Kant,
Marx, ... on netnews, but people such as myself, Creighton, and Mc Kiernan
feel you are ignoring us and we resent it.
Larry Cipriani
cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc