Re: Mr. Categorical Strikes Again

Paul S. Rhodes (sadecamus@ezl.com)
Sat, 14 Jun 1997 08:12:59 -0500

>So you would have the whole list be of one mind (of an extreme _homogeneity_
>of conviction), for how else might you wish to speak on behalf of it all. It
>isn't merely that everybody has their own opinion that bugs you, but that we
>do not, one in all, agree with you--I take it that what irks you, your
>complaint, is that while disagreeing with each other on virtually
>everything, we would seem to universally agree on one thing -- that we
>disagree with you. Utterly unfounded arrogance, indeed.
>
Mr. Callihan,

it is simply untrue that people on this list are united in their
disagreement with me, as you assume. Granted that many on this list
disagree with me and do so with the vociferous force of a sandstorm, but
many agreeing to disagree with me does not constitute universal agreement
to disagree with me. In fact, a few people on this list have from time to
time agreed with at least some of the things I have posted. Now, I am only
writing this to show you why you are wrong in presuming to make claims on
behalf of the entire list, something I am fortunately not arrogant enough
to do.

Tootles,

Paul S. Rhodes

______________________________________________________________________________
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes
and ale?
--Sir Toby Belch

--- from list nietzsche@jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---