From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun Dec  1 13:06:03 EST 1991
Article 1689 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is dialectical thought an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <5728@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Nov 91 20:29:28 GMT
References: <rreiner.690959273@yorku.ca> <s90wBB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 10

In article <s90wBB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>
>What you have offered is a prescription for the Lockean
>"plainstyle" of writing, which although itself rhetorical -- it
>seems to promise "clarity" or "common sense" or such like virtues
>-- believes itself to be "serious" and free of rhetorical devices.

Maybe so, but if you're not willing to adopt that style of
rhetoric, you're not going to be very convincing to many
in this newsgroup.  But maybe that's not your intent.


