Subject: Re: Engineering Envy [was: Re: CL and UML]
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 19:14:34 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Marcin Tustin
> I assumed that the word "valid" was a given. I am talking here about
> arguments referring to people being products of/affected by environments
> and circumstances that they do not control.

  I take it for granted that people have the ability to take control over
  such things.  Still, I am open to your counter-evidence.

> Getting a little hot under the collar?

  Apparently, you do not take "valid" _that_ much as a given, but it _is_
  sort of nice to see that you are actually out of control relative to your
  environment and circumstances.

> The axioms of your discourse may not be the same as someone else's.

  You realize, of course, that this is no more valid than the previous
  nonsensical "argument" was.

  As I said, I am used to that kind of anti-logic in political campaigns.
  You seem to favor that over a discussion, and I must assume that that is
  a result of your environment and circumstances outside your control, so
  _you_ cannot change your attitude, either.  "You realize that humans are
  not omnipotent and therefore that any argument may contain the seed of
  its own undoing?" and the cruft you produced are about equally smart
  things to say.  To the layman with no clue whatsoever, they sound sort of
  profound, but anyone who has read even the littlest bit of philosophy
  knows that spouting such drivel is the very antithesis of an argument.
  We all know and understand these things, so saying them betrays the idea
  that the one who repeats them thinks it has relevance in and by itself.
  It has none whatsoever.  It also betrays the idea tht he who repeats them
  thinks that doing so has an effect on the discussion.  It has none other
  than to show that he who argues thusly is a fool.

  Has it occurred to you that the axiom of different axioms for everybody
  may not be shared by everybody, such that your ability to take part in a
  discussion is limited to repeating your axiom to those who do not share it?

  Travel is a meat thing.