home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / talk / origins / 16591 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-23  |  961 b 
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
  2. From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
  3. Newsgroups: talk.origins
  4. Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
  5. Message-ID: <1jpu95INN5rq@fido.asd.sgi.com>
  6. Date: 22 Jan 93 22:59:49 GMT
  7. References: <1jo29o$srt@agate.berkeley.edu>
  8. Organization: sgi
  9. Lines: 15
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
  11.  
  12. In article <1jo29o$srt@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
  13. >
  14. > [material deleted]
  15. >
  16. > My impression is that many participants in this group think that
  17. > the position stated in the preceding paragraph is unreasonable,
  18. > and even in some sense reprehensible.  Is that correct?  If so,
  19. > why?
  20.  
  21. I'm honestly puzzled by this remark.    You've composed a highly
  22. qualified and carefully hedged position, and then said that it's
  23. "your impression" that many paricipants would find it unreasonable
  24. or reprehensible.   On what evidence is that your impression?
  25.  
  26. jon.
  27.