RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1

From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 16:40:06 MDT

Next message: Jonathan Davis: "RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1"

Previous message: Michelle Anderson: "RE: virus: my germette"
In reply to: Jonathan Davis: "Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1"
Next in thread: Kharin: "Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 30 September 2003 0014

<snip>
> You seem to have missed the point Karin. The Scruton discussion is
over,
> this thread is a general discussion on a type of fallacy.
</snip>

[Blunderov] Well, I sort of asked a question and Kharin replied. I never
agreed to stop talking about it. (You can't offer me some more tea if I
haven't had any yet!)

And I'm glad that Kharin replied because it was this direct correlation
between Scruton's values and Virian values that finally convinced me not
to read him.

Best Regards
Blunderov

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Next message: Jonathan Davis: "RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1"
Previous message: Michelle Anderson: "RE: virus: my germette"
In reply to: Jonathan Davis: "Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1"
Next in thread: Kharin: "Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 16:42:32 MDT