From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: I just have a question
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:53:44 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <17062@umd5.umd.edu> jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.052319.14686@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>>....but if you have the audacity, poor judge of character (if you can't
>>understand Sarah Jane, best leave Falstaff alone), and sheer lack of
>>observation to call Sarah Jane Smith a "nil brain", YOU HAVE A FIGHT ON YOUR
>>HANDS.

>Oooh.  I'm sorry, I tried, but I can't pass this one up.

>Also from Andrew David "Drewcifer" Simchik, a few days ago:

>>Just because you like someone or something that I don't doesn't make your
>>opinion any more valid than my own.  If I dislike Ace, that's an opinion
>>based on perception.  If you like her, don't presume that you have any more
>>of a factual basis than I do...opinion is opinion and I can't believe that
>>you cannot comprehend this!

>Hmm, Drew?  So, are you now saying that some opinions come from a "sheer
>lack of observation" and are therefore invalid?

No, every opinion is valid.  That doesn't mean I can't argue with them.  It
also doesn't mean that every opinion is equally valid.  For example, being
of the opinion that cyanide is good food is obviously pretty low on the
accuracy scale.  Being of the opinion that Sarah was an idiot is valid, but
I don't think it's all that accurate.

>Well, considering that in the recent Ace bash-fest, some of us cited
>plenty of details you'd missed or ignored, but you insisted that you
>still had the God-given right to keep shouting your opinion in our faces
>at every opportunity no matter what the facts of the stories were...

Um, sorry, but "facts" were conspicuous by their absence in that debate. 
And, see, even if you *had* cited facts, the truth is that factual argument
works well to contradict a declarative opinion (e.g. "Sarah Jane is an
imbecile") but it doesn't do much to a subjective opinion (e.g. "I hate
Ace").  Whereas you have to support a statement like "X is Y," you don't
always *have* a factual basis for "I hate Z".  There's a difference
there...just think hard.

>>And if you thought the Ace thing was bad, just you wait and see how this
>>debate flames!

>...then this ought to be fun.

Why didn't you disagree with me then?  I was hoping for a flamefest!  :)

>>****************************************************************************
>>*  Andrew David Simchik *  DISCLAIMER: I said it... 			   *
>                                           ...and said it...
>                                           ...and said it...
>                                           ...and said it...
>>*  a.k.a. Drewcifer     *  			No one else would!	   *							   *
>                                                Or felt the need to.
>>****************************************************************************

Do you think you could be any more insulting?  This is hardly called for.  I
suggest you turn your attention to more weighty matters, like beating people
with sticks.

>But seriously, folks, now that I've gotten that out of my system...

Amen to that.

Well, there were some points I considered addressing in the rest of your
post, but since you agreed with me, and since you've made it abundantly
clear that you're sick of hearing from me, I shall refrain.

(WILD APPLAUSE)

-- 
****************************************************************************
*  Andrew David Simchik *  DISCLAIMER: I said it... 			   *
*  a.k.a. Drewcifer     *  			No one else would!	   *							   *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho