Re: virus: implicit assumptions

Sodom (
Mon, 24 May 1999 12:35:46 -0700

What was dirty in that? Between Psypher's circular, babbling, question avoiding, baseless nonsense, and Brett's view from the "dark side" as in "without light", the dirty talk is all that's left, so lets be a little more explicit in the future. I think there is a great deal of rational discourse here when there are not a bunch of people doing everything they can to spew nonsense in the hope that they will trick someone into thinking they are smarter than the average rock. Wish we could make a virtual holding pen for Snow Leoparn, Psypher and Brett - it would be better for everyone that way.

Bill Roh

Robin Faichney wrote:

> In message <>,
> Zloduska <> writes
> >psypher wrote:
> >
> >>...hey there virians. Given that this here forum is dedicated to
> >>skepticism and the questioning of assumptions, I thought it would be
> >>nice if I pointed out a central assumption of this list that keeps
> >>annoying me.
> >>
> >>...from the CoV homepage
> >>
> >>[1]a forum for rational discourse
> >
> >There's your problem. The phrase "rational discourse", sounds to me, for
> >lack of a better word, like pure wank.
> I love it when you talk dirty!
> --
> Robin