[net.religion] What passes for argument here

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (12/11/84)

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

tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (12/11/84)

>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.

Now, now, what am I supposed to say when you fail to refer to any of my
points?  Include both articles in toto and then just say what I did above?
Go over every sentence of yours and say "This does not refer to anything in
my message" over and over?  No, Charles, I did the only thing possible.  And
I agree: It is shameful what passes for argument here, particularly the
postings of a certain correspondent who approaches Bickford status in his
non-responsiveness.

>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

Add "gibberish" to "non-responsiveness".  This paragraph is one of the
closest approximations to true semantic nullity I have ever seen.  What in
God's name (Ubizmo, in case you didn't know) is it supposed to mean?  I've
neither put words in your mouth nor asked you to speak to me at all....
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/12/84)

> 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. [WINGATE]

As opposed to Wingate's style:  ignore your opponent's questions, obscure the
issues by continuing the discussion as if the questions regarding one's beliefs
from those opponents had already been answered in your favor, [REPEAT UNTIL
OPPONENTS ARE ANNOYED ENOUGH TO WRITE MORE ARTICLES ABOUT THE EMPTY
NON-ANSWERING STYLE OF SUCH PEOPLE THAN ABOUT THE ISSUES...]
-- 
"So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither
"No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother
				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr