From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 15:49:28 BST
On 30 Jun 2005 at 11:43, Michael Hamilton wrote:
Here we go again. Personally I did feel a little bit of schadenfreude
towards Platt in this case. Unfortunately, as seems to be usual, a
smug over-reaction to his post has turned a point of agreement (the
immorality of the Supreme Court decision) into another meaningless
clogging-up of the MD with aimless sparring. Can't you see that with
this attitude, you'll never progress or agree on anything?
msh says:
Look,
This isn't about getting faux philosophers to agree with my position.
I gave up on that several months ago. I doubt that you are familiar
enough with my writing to see this, so let's let it slide.
My intention here is to expose dogma posing as political philosophy,
that is, ideological opinion repeated ad nauseum but never defended
with argument and evidence, despite repeated calls for same.
This is a philosophy forum, not a Rush Limbaugh adoration society.
Defending or ignoring repeated postings of opinion, when such
opinions have been challenged yet remain unsupported, seriously
erodes the integrity of this list.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 16:18:47 BST