From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 07:32:25 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Subject: PILATE SAYETH UNTO HIM...
In-Reply-To: <199605240530.AAA23158@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960524072314.8972A-100000@crl2.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          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?
	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~