From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:35:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Dr. Vulis
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961105143024.24101B-100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,


On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 Phill wrote:

> Of course the two sentences don't say exactly the same thing, 
> otherwise I would have written one.

That never stopped academics before.
 
> I don't think we have a problem with the statements conflicting,
> there is an interaction. What a Hegelian would call dilectic. 
> I prefer to use a different term for much the same reasons as
> Sorros, the misuse of the term has created garbage that one
> does not want to associate with (eg Historical materialism). 

Please eschew the obfuscation.  The sentences Phill hastely wrote
are simply contradictory.  It's fatuous to claim, after the fact,
that he intended some sort of dialectic (i.e., a system of 
arguement in which conflicting ideas are resolved).

Intellectual honesty isn't required on this list, but it is
appreciated.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~