From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Context/Style/Spelling - Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 20:19:41 GMT

In article <1k6jhkINN2sr@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.072805.241@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <1k3ubqINN1ri@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>>    >There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play
>>    >moral relativity. My position is such that, an individual and
>>    >a group weigh what is best for all concerned. What is best
>>    >can be very fundamental- best wages to live on, health
>>    >coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.
>>    >
>>Well, to be kind about it, I would say only that "Coram Populo" is a typical
>>victim of our "modern" edukational system, and hence, essentially can not
>>reason.
>
>Again you cannot spell - Oh wait I see, it is a sarcasm... but then again.
>
>>
>>It is rare indeed that I actually laugh out loud, but to read that "There is
>>no basis (moral) to give anyone civil or individual rights." immediately
>>followed by a sentence providing just such a basis is, well, hilarious.
>>
>
>Well it is obvious that you cannot read and make sense of what someone
>has written- I am glad that you had a good laugh.  
>
>Now read carefully-  I stated 'there is no moral basis for anything if you
>wish- to play moral relatively', then I stated "MY POSITION IS SUCH THAT"
>
>And what is the sentence that is giving you this problem?  I do not see
>any thing where I stated one thing and said another.
>
>>However, these postings ARE a serious problem, and, IMO, likely THE problem
>>with the USA today.
>
>Yes-your posting are a serious problem, in many ways.  1) they lack continuity
          ^^^^^^^^^^^
>and context 2) spelling is not too great (I will assume keyboard fumbling)
>3) postings tend to twist and turn and attempt to build (create) relationships
>that are not completely valid.

>
Perhaps Phil Ronzone has trouble with spellings. Most likely, the
mistakes are typos. I hope that your apparent lack of skill vis a vis
subject-verb agreement is a similar failing of manual dexterity
rather than a true reflection of your command of the language.
Moral: those who lice in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

>>Loosely called ACM, or anti-conceptual mentality, the ACM person is
>>incapable of treating the world as a unified whole. Instead, his/her
>>"rational process" consists of slogans, images, sound and video bites,
>>and a whole horde of imagery, devoid of any connetional rational underpinning.
>
>This appears to be you - let me support my observation.  You constantly
>resort to naming calling (slogans), use acronyms (sound/video bites), us
>old world thinking to support new world concepts (NAZI, commumist, socialist).
>
>Maybe you should stay away from the SJMN and WSJ for awhile.  They seem to
>have you confused about how to process information.
>
>
>>Nice enthusiam, but, gee whiz, his posts are an embarrasment.
--
 !         \                                                                    !      1------1                     
 !\     1______1            __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 ! \    1______1      /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !      !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8371 ca.politics:10717 talk.politics.misc:70317