rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (05/30/85)
Of all the pompous and degrading articles I have read on this net, Ken
Arndt's public reply to a private mailing was the lowest yet. Of what I saw
of the letter he replied to, it seemed to be a reasonable, well thought-out
argument of what is wrong with the Creationist viewpoint (and religion as a
whole). Ken, of course, uses the lowest forms of cheap debating tricks just
so that he can publicly humiliate this innocent young lady.
I have never seen such utter uncaring and total lack of regard for a fellow
human being before. I just can't understand how anybody could stoop so low
as Ken has, just to make a point. And he even talked about posting a
follow-up article. If he has an ounce of decency left in him, he should at
least make a public apology to the letter-writer. But I don't think anybody
who read his trash will ever have any respect for him again.
(Note: I haven't reposted any part of his article, but it is only a few
back, if anybody else wants to read it an also become infuriated.)
----
Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University }
"According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold,
and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms
and a void."
-Democritus(400 B.C.)