From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:25:49 GMT

In article <73275@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.154424.24351@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>				 I asked for a clarification, and you
>>take this as evidence that I don't care??? Have you considered
>>taking an introductory course in logic.
>
>Have you noticed English can be ambiguous?  I took your "what wouldn't"
>as sarcasm--implying that nothing would make a difference to you.  As
>for the clarification: how would *you* know what is unpleasant to Jews?
>In particular, the "it" was in reference to passing off Christian ideas
>about God and religion and lumping them with Judaism.
Thanks. My apologies for flaming you on this matter.
I would know mainly from Jews telling me, I imagine.

>>>No, it's not a matter of opinion.  You postd a massive lack of awareness
>>>regarding modern rabbinic Judaism when you thought it consists of just
>>>dietary laws and the Sabbath.  The historical record regarding the
>>>dominance of the Pharisees during the Second Temple era is rather solid.
>
>>Funny....  I've never seen any such evidence, and I've read a fair
>>amount of history of this era.
>
>There's Josephus, the Talmud, and even the New Testament itself.  One
>easily accessible and good account is Paul Johnson's book.
Well, that's not at all what I see in the New Testament. What I
see is the Sadducees being dominant. The Talmud has a vested interest
in portraying that picture, so I don't trust it much--I'm not
sure the NT does so much in this matter, but I'm not about to
defend that. There is quite a bit of Josephus, so would you mind
being a bit more specific?

>>I.e. unpleasant(person).
>
>>I would put it to you that it is rather a function which takes
>>at least two arguments:
>>unpleasant(person A, person B)
>>Where it reads "person A finds person B unpleasant."
>
>>If that's so, I have no problems with you saying that you find me
>>unpleasant, but I don't think that you saying that I am unpleasant
>>per se is meaningful, unless you mean by that something like:
>>(all A) unpleasant(person A, Eric Rescorla)
>
>>Which is a false assertion, even if you qualify it so that A!=Eric Rescorla.
>
>>So, Matthew, would you mind clarifying what you meant to say?
>
>How about unpleasant(Jews, non-Jews speaking falsehoods about Judaism)?
Hmmm....No, I don't think so.
You might be able to convince me that it's A:A subset Jews and
cardinality(A)>.5*cardinality(Jews), but I doubt I'd buy into the
universal quantifier.

Minor detail, however.

Really, though, Matthew, unpleasant({Rescorla,Matthews,Ingles(?),
Mathew,...},Matthew Weiner) in instances where it is not at all
clear we were speaking falsehoods about Judaism, e.g. the
Calculus thread. You've also been extremely rude about JEWS who
have made comments you don't agree with about Judaism. (e.g. Yahweh
cult.) Sounds to me like unpleasant(Matthew,Anyone who says anything
that Matthew doesn't agree with about just about anything.)

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism