From: Mike McNally <m5@vail.tivoli.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:34:55 +0800
To: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
Subject: Re: A Libertine Question
In-Reply-To: <9606298386.AA838693723@smtplink.alis.ca>
Message-ID: <31FD4FA8.6DF6@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

> As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details 
> and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement.

I'm sorry, but this thread is making no sense.

You wondered aloud why Tim would make moral judgements; I claim he
didn't.  What exactly was it you were trying to say?

> To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible 
> examples -

- that you clearly have in stock as ready-to-use straw men -

> did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its 
> humour.

So you're saying that you made a response to Tim questioning his use
of moral judgements just to introduce your own moral judgement?

If you want to issue moral pronouncements ex cathedra, why not just start
a new thread instead of couching them in a confusing response?

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * For the time being,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *    
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *    three heads and eight arms.