[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE |
| Notice: | V1 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open. |
| Moderator: | REGENT::BROOMHEAD |
|
| Created: | Thu Jan 30 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 30 1995 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 873 |
| Total number of notes: | 22329 |
476.0. "The Argument from Intimidation" by HARRY::HIGGINS (Citizen of Atlantis) Thu Sep 10 1987 18:44
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an
argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an
opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method
of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it
is particularly prevelant in today's culture, one would do well
to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.
This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy "ad hominem",
and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in
essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting
to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent.
Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefor his argument is false."
But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to
impeach an opponents character by means of his argument, thus
impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral
can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."
In the first case, Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is
offered as proof of the the falsehood of his argument. In the second
case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and
offered as proof of his immorality.
In todays epistemological jungle, that second method is used more
frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should
be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The
Argument From Intimidation"
The essential characteristic of the Argument From Intimidation is
its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt,
or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum
demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion,
under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern
is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless,
insensitive,ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea."
The classic story of the Argument From Intimidation is the story
"The Emporers New Clothes".
In that story, some charlatans sell nonexistent garments to the
Emporer by asserting that the garments' unusual beauty makes them
invisible to those who are morally depraved at heart. Observe the
psychological factors required to make this work: the charlatans
rely on the Emporer's self-doubt; the Emporer does not question
their assertion nor their moral authority; he surrenders at once,
claiming that he does see the garments, -thus denying the evidence
of his own eyes and invalidating his own consciousness- rather than
face a threat to his precarious self esteem. His distance from
reality may be gauged by the fact that he prefers to walk naked
down the street, displaying his nonexistent garments to the people--
rather than risk incurring the moral condemnation of two scoundrels.
The people, prompted by the same psychological panic, try to surpass
one another in loud exclamations on the splendor of his clothes-
until a child cries out that the Emporer is naked.
This is the exact pattern of the working of the Argument From
Intimidation, as it is being worked all around us today.
We have heard it and are hearing it constantly:
"Only those who lack finer instincts can fail to accept the morality
of altruism" -- "Only the ignorant can fail to know that reason
has been invalidated" -- "Only blackhearted reactionaries can advocate
Capitalism" -- "Only warmongers can oppose the United Nations" --
"Only the lunatic fringe can still believe in freedom" -- "Only
cowards can fail to see that life is a sewer" -- "Only the superficial
can seek beauty, happiness, achievement, values, or heroes"
As an example of an entire field of activity based on nothing but
the Argument From Intimidation, I give you modern art, --where,
in order to prove that they *do* possess the special insight possessed
only by the mystic "elite", the populace are trying to surpass one
another in loud exclamations of some bare (but smudged) piece of
canvas.
The Argument from Intimidation dominates todays discussions in two
forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form
of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage,
which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. ("only the
primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is
oversimplification") But in private, day-to-day experience, it comes
up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds
conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on *what* is said,
but on *how* it is said, --not on content, but on tone of voice.
The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity.
"Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?" And if
this does not intimidate the prospective victim, --who answers
properly: "I am" -- the ensuing dialogue goes something like this:
"Oh no, you couldn't be! Not really!"
"Really"
"But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!"
"I don't"
"Oh come now!"
"Since I don't know it, will you tell me the reasons for thinking
that capitalism is outdated?"
"Well if you don't know I couldn't possibly tell you!"
All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide eyed stares, grunts,
snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating
ominous innuendos and emotional vibrations of a single kind:
disapproval.
If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds
that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons,
no ground to stand on --that their noisy aggresiveness serves to
hide a vacuum -- that the Argument From Intimidation is a confession
of intellectual impotence.
The primordial archetype of that Argument is obvious ( and so are
the reasons of its appeal to the neo-mysticism of our age) "To
those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who
don't, none is possible."
The psychological source of that argument is social metaphysics.
A social metaphysician is one who regards the consciousness of other
men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to
a social metaphysician that the moral appraisal of himself by others
is a primary concern which supercedes truth, facts, reason, logic.
The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that
nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus
he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own
consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatans moral sanction.
It is only a social metaphysician who could concieve of such absurdity
as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: "But people
won't *like* you!"
Strictly speaking, a social metaphysician does not concieve of his
Argument in conscious terms: he finds it "instinctively" by
introspection -- since it represents his psycho-epistemological
way of life. We have all met the exasperating type of person who
does not listen to what one says, but to the emotional vibrations
of ones voice, anxiously translating them into approval or disapproval,
then answering accordingly. This is a kind of self imposed Argument
from Intimidation, to which a social metaphysician surrenders in
most of his human encounters. And thus when he meets an adversary,
when his premises are challenged, he resorts automatically to the
weapon that terrifies him the most: the withdrawal of a moral sanction.
Since that kind of terror is unknown to psychologically healthy
men, they may be taken in by the Argument from Intimidation, precisely
because of their innocence. Unable to understand that Arguments
motive or to believe that it is merely a senseless bluff, they assume
that its user has some sort of knowledge or reasons to back up his
seemingly self confident or belligerent assertions; they give him
the benefit of the doubt -- and are left in helplessly bewildered
confusion. It is thus that the social metaphysicians can victimize
the young, the innocent, the conscientious.
This is particularly prevelant in college classrooms. Many professors
use the Argument from Intimidation to stiffle independant thinking
among the student, to evade questions they cannot answer, to discourage
any critical analysis of their arbitrary assumptions or any departure
from the intellectual status quo.
"Aristotle? My dear fellow--" (a weary sigh) "if you had read Professor
Spiffkins piece in--" (reverently) "the January 1912 issue of
"Intellect" magazine, which--" (contemptuously) "you obviously haven't,
you would know--" (airily) "that Aristotle has been refuted."
"Professor X?" (X standing for the name of a distinguised theorist
of free enterprise economics) "Are you quoting Professor X? Oh no!
Not *really*!"--followed by a sarcastic chuckle intented to convey
that professor X has been thoroughly discredited. (by whom? Blank
out)
Such teachers are frequently assisted by the "liberal" goon squad
of the classroom who burst into laughter at appropriate moments.
In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost
exclusive method of discussion. Predominantly, todays political
debates consist of smears and apologies, or intimidation and
appeasement. The first is usually, though not exclusively, practised
by the "liberals", the second by the "conservatives". The champions
in this respect are the "liberal" Republicans who practice both:
the first toward their "conservative" fellow Republicans, --the second
towards the Democrats.
All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory
assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute
for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking
credulity of the hearers.
The Argument from Intimidation is not new; it has been used in all
ages and cultures, but so seldom on so wide a scale as today. It
is used more crudely in politics than in other fields of activity,
but it is not confined to politics. It permeates our entire culture.
It is a symptom of cultural bankruptcy.
How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against
it: moral certainty.
When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or
private, one cannot seek, desire, or expect the enemy's sanction.
Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion
of judgement--not anyones approval or disapproval; and, above all,
*not* the approval of those whose standars are the opposites of
one's own.
Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist
of introducing moral judgement into intellectual issues, but of
*substituting* moral judgement for intellectual argument. Moral
evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not
merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgement when and
where appropriate; to suppress such judgement is an act of moral
cowardice. But a moral judgement must always follow, not precede
(or supercede) the reasons on which it is based.
When one gives reasons for ones verdict, one assumes responsibility
for it and lays oneself open for objective judgement: if ones reasons
are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn
without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of
moral "hit and run" driving, which is the essence of the Argument
from Intimidation.
Observe that the men who use that Argument are the ones who dread
a reasoned moral attack more than any other kind of battle --and
when they encounter a morally confident adversary, they are loudest
in protesting that "moralizing" should be kept out of intellectual
discussions. But to discuss evil in a manner implying nuetrality,
is to sanction it.
The Argument from Intimidation illustrates why it is important
to be certain of one's premises and of one's moral ground. It
illustrates the kind of intellectual pitfall that awaits those who
venture forth without a full, clear, consistent set of convictions,
wholly integrated all the way down to fundamentals --those who
recklessly leap into battle armed with nothing but a few random
notions floating in the fog of the unknown, the unidentified, the
undefined, the unproved, and supported by nothing but their feelings,
hopes, and fears. The Argument from Intimidation is their Nemesis.
In moral and intellectual issues, it is not enough to be right,
one has to *know* one is right.
The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument
from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who,
rejecting the enemy's moral standards and with full certainty of
his own rectitude said:
"If this be treason, make the most of it."
essay by Ayn Rand (July 1964)
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 476.1 | thank you, richard | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Sep 10 1987 19:59 | 6 |
|
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 476.3 | Ayn Rand. Ugh. | DIEHRD::MAHLER | Don't touch me. I'm all slimy! | Thu Sep 10 1987 21:45 | 5 |
|
Gnarly Steve!
|
| 476.4 | take it to TESLA2::OBJECTIVISM | SPMFG1::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Fri Sep 11 1987 06:53 | 4 |
| Re .0 The mere fact that the essay was written by a woman in no
way makes it appropriate for this conference ;-)/2
re.3 What's the matter ? too logical for you ? Try refuting it.
|
| 476.5 | Bookish | FDCV10::IWANOWICZ | | Fri Sep 11 1987 10:35 | 8 |
| Is this not more appropriate for DSSDEV::BOOKS ... ?
Or the Boston Common ?
........ Would the basenoter please indicate why
the perambulation was typed in ?
|
| 476.6 | Only a fool wouldn't understand :-) | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Fri Sep 11 1987 14:28 | 8 |
| Well, I appreciated .0. Perhaps .0 is implying that we in womannotes
tend to argue by intimidation. "What! You're not a feminist?!"
"I would expect a *man* to say that, not a *woman*!" :-)
...Karen
p.s. Did you notice that Ayn was only talking about men having
this problem? (no "she"'s) :-)
|
| 476.7 | well, of course..... | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Fri Sep 11 1987 14:35 | 8 |
| re .6 I also felt that the basenote writer was indicating
that we argue by intimidation. (Tho I can think of one other
file where this is far more prevalent). :-)
Was Ayn Rand a feminist? (I keep thinking of the scene in the
book about the architect - The Foutainhead? - that the book
always opened to because everyone wanted to read it :-})
Bonnie
|
| 476.8 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Fri Sep 11 1987 15:10 | 12 |
| Re .6 the p.s. Ayn Rand was not raised speaking english - she
learned it later. the common usage was the male pronoun to indicate
either gender.
As for being a feminist, no, she was a people-ist. She held
that rights derived from our nature as reasoning beings. not
as males, or whites, or Americans, but as humans. She was
apalled at the 60's 'Women's Lib" movement - see "The Age
of Envy" in "The New Left : The Anti-Industrial Revolution".
Dana
|
| 476.9 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | remembrance of things past | Mon Sep 14 1987 13:59 | 9 |
| Re .8, if Ayn Rand was appalled by the women's lib movement it must
have been because she had no idea what it would have been like to
have lived her life as an average woman (housewife, mother, secretary,
waitress, factory worker) instead of as a celebrated author. It's
the average woman (average I.Q., average looks, average advantages)
who really needs women's lib, not a handful of female geniuses.
Lorna
|
| 476.10 | She must've been from Lake Wobegon | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Sep 14 1987 14:15 | 12 |
| RE: last couple
I doubt very much that Ayn Rand would've considered herself "average"
in any sense.
Nor seen any need at all for the feminist movement. (As we know
she didn't)
I find her theories at once fascinating, attractive, and horrifying.
Dawn
|
| 476.11 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Tue Sep 15 1987 06:58 | 6 |
| RE.9 Been a while since i read her bio, but I recall that as a young
extra, would_be_actress, etc.. she worked as a waitress. She was
38 when her third novel, "The Fountainhead", was published. After
it had been rejected by *twelve* publishers.
Dana
|
| 476.12 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | Quit jammin' me | Tue Sep 15 1987 13:04 | 7 |
| Re .11, but the average waitress doesn't have a novel in the works.
The average working woman doesn't finally achieve world recognition
at the age of 38, thus never having to worry about equal pay or
sex descrimination, etc.
Lorna
|
| 476.13 | We are each exceptional in our own way | ARMORY::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Tue Sep 15 1987 13:52 | 5 |
| Nobody who considers herself "average" will *EVER* achieve world
recognition. The word is a trap. Or an excuse : "I'm just average."
Consider how much effort you can save by labeling yourself like
that : you'll never have to excell, or grow, or learn, or achieve,
or even live up to the potential you *do* have. Just average out.
|
| 476.14 | | DFLAT::DICKSON | Network Design tools | Wed Sep 16 1987 11:04 | 4 |
| re .6 and .8
When Ayn Rand uses the word "man" or "men" she is using it somewhat in
the way of an anthropologist, meaning "homo sapiens" or "human being".
|
| 476.15 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | Quit jammin' me | Wed Sep 16 1987 14:03 | 18 |
| Re .13, I agree that people need to have a sense of self-worth in
order to accomplish goals. But, I don't think this needs to mean
that they can't make a realistic appraisal of themselves. I'd be
suffering from a delusion of grander if I went around saying that
I had an above average I.Q., or that I was stunningly beautiful,
when in fact I know by now that I'm just about average in both brains
and looks. But, I don't feel that being average makes me a loser.
I'm not going to give up and wind up a drunkard sleeping in doorways
just because I'm average. However, if I tried my best to write
a novel I'd consider myself lucky to come up with something to compare
with Barbara Cartland, never mind Ayn Rand. I don't underrate average
people. All I meant was that the average woman comes up against
a lot of sexism in their lives that, I imagine, someone like an
Ayn Rand may not have noticed as much because of superior talent
(?), and that may be one reason why she wasn't a feminist.
Lorna
|
| 476.16 | a feminist, but anti-"Women's Lib" | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Sep 16 1987 18:28 | 19 |
| re .15:
I will try to find the article where she discusses her objections
to the "Women's Lib" movement of the '60's. But until then, let
me say that I don't think that she was not a feminist, at least
in the sense I get from the "Who is not a Feminist" note.
She denounced the Women's Lib movement, not because she didn't think
that discrimination existed, but because she did not think it was
right to "fix" it with more discrimination (against men). She also
objected to anybody demanding things they do not deserve. Thus,
she felt is was wrong for women to demand certain jobs merely because
they were women, regardless of their fitness for that position.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 476.17 | I'm surprised | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Sep 17 1987 12:58 | 11 |
| RE: .16
My goodness, I *AM* surprised that Ayn Rand would make a comment
showing such ignorange of the issues and goals of feminism, and
"equal pay/equal work".
She may not have been a feminist, but I thought she would've been
much better informed on the issues.
Dawn
|
| 476.18 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Fri Sep 18 1987 07:14 | 10 |
| RE.17 The "equal work/equal pay" issue was not at issue when she
wrote. She wrote that the Women's Libbers were a caricature of
feminism, not to be confused with the mainstream. As for ew/ep
she would have doubtless asked "who decides ?" The answer is
obviously the free market. When less people compete for a given
job, the pay rates will go up for that job. As long as there
are plenty of people willing to work for low wages, wages will
remain low.
Dana
|
| 476.19 | | COLORS::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Fri Sep 18 1987 10:44 | 13 |
| <--(.18)
Dana, how does your "free market" theory explain the current situation
resp. nurses, secretaries, and fast-food workers here in the Boston
area? Hospitals, businesses, and the various heartburn emporia are all
woefully short-staffed in those categories, yet compensation hasn't
risen in response.
I would argue that psychosocial rather than economic factors explain at
least part of the discrepancy.
=maggie
|
| 476.20 | exageration ? | ARMORY::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Fri Sep 18 1987 13:25 | 10 |
| I would guess that the people who could take those jobs have found
better alternatives. And that the people who do have those jobs
are working enough overtime to get the work done. Isn't economics
a social factor ? If the employers truely needed more help they
would offer higher wages. I suspect that part of the 'labor
shortage' is exagertion on the part of managers seeking to expand
their work force/responsibility. And do we need all those burger
joints ? If nurses and secretaries' wages rise enough, people may
be motivated to live on a high_cost_of_living place like Boston.
Why else would they want to ? Not everyone is into city life.
|
| 476.21 | Affirmative Action | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Sep 21 1987 09:58 | 18 |
| re .17:
> My goodness, I *AM* surprised that Ayn Rand would make a comment
> showing such ignorange of the issues and goals of feminism, and
> "equal pay/equal work".
If you will please read .16 again. you will notice that I was not
talking about equal-work/equal-pay. I was speaking of affirmative
action. Ms. Rand opposed this in all forms, whether the beneficiary
was black, spanish, female, or even white-male.
Still haven't yet had time to find the article. Soon.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 476.22 | | VINO::EVANS | | Tue Sep 22 1987 13:18 | 18 |
| RE: 21
AH! That's much clearer to me, now. I had *thought* she would be
a "queen-bee", and it seems as though she was indeed.
(For those who don't know the term: "Queen-bee"- a woman who "made
it on her own" and therefore sees no need for ERA, or other feminist
agenda)
BTW - IS there anyoe out there who knows whether there's a "Real*
difference between a feminist and a "women's-libber", except STRIDENCY
??? I always thought they were the same thing, except that if one
disapproved, you became a "w-l".
Dawn
|
| 476.23 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | I sobered up for this?! | Wed Sep 23 1987 07:34 | 16 |
| As I said, Ayn Rand believed that rights derived from the fact
that people were thinking beings. She would have disapproved
of any discrimination based on race, gender, etc.. She would
have seen the ERA as superfluous, affirming rights for the
wrong reason. When women take their rights *as individuals*
for granted, and defend them, ERA will become meaningless.
She considered the Women's Lib movement to be caricatures
of the feminist movement.
Am I repeating myself ?
And if you "made it on your own" would you still use derogatory
terms towards other women of achievement ? Think about it.
Dana
|
| 476.24 | Women's lib was a term of the early 70's | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Theory, vapid theory | Wed Sep 23 1987 11:04 | 18 |
| < Note 476.22 by VINO::EVANS >
>
> BTW - IS there anyoe out there who knows whether there's a "Real*
> difference between a feminist and a "women's-libber", except STRIDENCY
> ??? I always thought they were the same thing, except that if one
> disapproved, you became a "w-l".
>
> Dawn
I believe that "Women's liberation" was the favored term in the
early 70's (at least I remember my mother going to Women's lib
meetings then), and it was replaced by feminist by the late 70's
after "women's lib" had too many bad connotations (among them
stridence). This is a case of the general idea that non-dominant
groups often change their prefered name when the old one's
conotations in the dominant group become offensive.
--David
|
| 476.25 | | VINO::EVANS | | Wed Sep 23 1987 13:36 | 21 |
| RE: .23,.24
Dana: are you differentiating the "first wave" of feminism from
the current one, and calling the current one "women's lib"? Or..
what are your definitions for those terms?
Would a woman who "made it on her own" make deragatory remarks about
another woman of achievement? Depends entirely on the women and
the situation. Some might, some might not.
Hi David - Thanks - I *thought* the terms referred to the same thing,
though, to be precise (your reply jogged my memory) I think the
original "first wave" of feminism (turn-ish of century? Ithink.)
was indeed called a "Feminist" movement. Guess it was decided to
take back the original name.
Seems to be the term "women's libber" is applied to a feminist of
whom one disapproves.
Dawn
|
| 476.26 | | NATASH::BUTCHART | | Thu Sep 24 1987 17:26 | 32 |
| I enjoyed the base note immensely.
Why? Because I plan to make use of Rand's logic the next time I
am argued at in that manner on _any_ issue. I didn't feel that
the base noter was entering it to denounce the way we argue; I was
pleased that Steve had taken time to write in a very nice treatise
by a woman that will enable any of us to recognize when we're being
put down without any kind of reasoning to back it up. _We_ can
use Ms. Rand's reasoning right back at those who would perhaps
say to us, "What?? You still believe in the ERA? My dear girl,
haven't you heard . . ."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been argued at like
that (by intimidation) by both sexes many times in my life (mostly
at parties, I admit, where the free flow of liquor can give anyone
CPU difficulties). I have also been in classes as Rand describes,
where teachers, both men and women, put down students in that manner.
Reading Ms. Rand's piece gives me an ounce more courage to be able
to stand my ground intellectually and verbally the next time it
happens to me.
Is this not a case (however indirect) of a woman, whatever her
intention, helping another woman (in this case, yours truly)? I
don't agree with all Rand's ideas, but I do agree with this particular
one. Recognizing the characteristics of this type of intimidation
can enable us (both men and women) to overcome it. To dismiss
her ideas just because she was a Queen Bee is to be guilty of the
same mental flaw she points out. Along those lines it was at once
sobering and amusing to me that one of the first few replies to
the base note was simply "Ayn Rand. Ugh".
Marcia
|
| 476.27 | credit where credit is due | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Sep 24 1987 19:09 | 21 |
| re .26:
> ...I was pleased that Steve had taken time to write in a very nice
> treatise by a woman ...
Being one of the "Steve"s in this conference, I would like to point
out that Richard Higgins took the time and effort to transcribe
the article.
/
( ___
) ///
/ (Steve Marshall)
P.S. I just noticed that reply .2 is missing in which Steve Thompson
offered a beautiful example of the exact techniques discussed in
.0. Reply .3 (titled "Ayn Rand. Ugh.") then says "Gnarly, Steve!" with
no reference to .2. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion as to
the name of the transcriber.
|
| 476.28 | Her words are powerful | HARRY::HIGGINS | Citizen of Atlantis | Fri Sep 25 1987 11:02 | 18 |
|
> Why? Because I plan to make use of Rand's logic the next time I
> am argued at in that manner on _any_ issue.
> Reading Ms. Rand's piece gives me an ounce more courage to be able
> to stand my ground intellectually and verbally the next time it
> happens to me.
> Marcia
Some noters questioned my motives for entering Ms Rands' article
as a basenote. This response serves my motivations exactly.
richard
|
| 476.30 | Duuhh . . . | NATASH::BUTCHART | | Fri Sep 25 1987 14:51 | 5 |
| Re: .27
Thanks for setting me straight! (Apologies, Richard.)
Marcia
|