From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:02:25 GMT

ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>>>Where would a nation of criticizers get us? 

>>    Looks to me like it's made us the greatest superpower the world has 
>>ever known, but that's just my humble opinion.
 
> I hardly think that this is a nation of criticizers, at least it hasn't
> been throughout the history...the fear is that it will become one.

    Well, speaking for myself only, I have absolutely no fear of anything 
that would result if the citizens of our nation became regular practioners 
of critical thinking. The possibility that it might spill over into written 
or spoken words doesn't bother me at all.

> Can't believe that Clinton is allowing homosexuals in the military.  No, 
> what I can't believe is that he is ignoring the advice, thoughts and feelings
> of most (if not all) of the higher-ups in the military.  Certainly Colin 
> Powell knows more than Bill.

    Chelsea probably knows more than Bill, but I still expect that 
homosexuals will be admitted to the millitary. I guess that it's ironic that 
Bill went through all the ROTC rigamarole to get out of the war when all he 
would have had to do was go down to the draft board, get naked, kiss the 
examiner on the lips, and tell him he was sexy.

>  Hopefully Bill is going to listen to advisors and people that know more 
>than he does when he becomes president. I am wholly against the idea that 
>homosexuals be allowed in the military because it seems that most of the 
>military people feel that it will cause problems.

    I'd say that they're right, but to a G.I. pinned down in a foxhole do 
you think it really makes that big a difference whether the guy next to him 
thinks he's cute? As long as they depend on each other for survival they're 
tied together by a self-interest that transcends sexual preference.

    I suppose that it wouldn't make any difference to you to hear a list 
of the many emminent Victorian English officers who were supposedly 
homosexuals or even pedophiles? Winston Churchill once made some comment 
about the three great traditions of the British Navy - rum, sodomy and the 
lash. And we all know what a bunch of girlie-men those British tars were,
eh? Under the reign of Victoria the British Empire quadrupled in size.

> Bill is the commander 
>in chief, but what really does he know.   Yes, yes, I understand that 
>there is a human rights issue here, but you know as well as I do that the 
>constitution makes exceptions for national defense.

    I just don't see that having gays in combat is going to compromise 
national defense. I suppose the implication is that it will damage the 
morale of the hetero troops, or perhaps that gay and hetero units won't 
support each other if they get in trouble. 

> Damn I hate this Vi editor, why no emacs on here?

    You really are a Blasphemer, aren't you? The next thing we know you'll 
be criticizing punch cards...

>About Einstein (Newton also) humble people, take credit for much less
>than they deserve.

    Perhaps, however I feel that Einstein wasn't one of them. He received 
a great deal of well-deserved credit, and IMHO his comment about individual 
ideas vs those formed from interaction with others reflected the truth of 
his own situation. Einstein owed a great deal to his contemporaries and 
predecessors (primarily Lorentz); Bohrs also owed a great deal of his 
success to the work of Max Plank, etc. The point is that with anything as 
complex as modern science, it's almost impossible to completely separate 
individual thought from group effort.

>Einstein also had some problems of his own, 
>couldn't deal with Quantum theorey (God does not roll dice) and died
>an outcast amongst the current scientific community...he was too busy
>thinking about what he thought was not right that, without any facts
>to the contrary, continued criticizing the work oDirac and others.
>Funny that you should mention Einstein...

    Well, I also have problems with Quantum theory, but I wouldn't say 
that either I or Albert Einstein should be considered outcasts. Einstein's
criticism was usually more than just blowing smoke. Wasn't Dirac's 
relativistic QM a direct response to Einstein's criticism?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton