From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!yorku.ca!rreiner Tue Nov 26 12:31:54 EST 1991
Article 1538 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!yorku.ca!rreiner
>From: rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner)
Subject: Re: Is dialectical thought an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <rreiner.690959273@yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: York University
References: <rreiner.690823427@yorku.ca> <LV0uBB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 05:07:53 GMT

rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner) writes:
>> Would you care to state [your arguments] clearly?

> [ 20 lines of nonsense deleted ]

Do you believe that your reply amounts to the clear statement of your
arguments that I invited?

I suppose in some circles that kind of talk may pass as cogent, but I
(and I suspect most others here) can't make head or tail of it.  I do
not think that that is our fault.  If you'd like to try again, here
are some handy tips that may help.

    - Do not use terms you do not understand, such as "algorithm",
    	"model", and perhaps even "formal system".  Use the shortest
    	and simplest words you can possibly stomach.
    - Try to answer the question, rather than talking about other things.
    - Do not use any quotation marks unless you are either quoting
    	someone or mentioning a term rather than using it.  If you
    	mean something, say it.  If you mean something else, say that.
    - Do not ask rhetorical questions; do not make puns; do not try to
    	make your point through deviant use of punctuation; do not use
    	terms in unannounced private senses; write in one language at a
    	time.

If you can't bring yourself to do this then perhaps, as Mikhail Zeleny
has suggested, you'd be better off sharing your opinions with those
who can better tolerate self-important idle tomfoolery.


