Re: ATOMISM: Crackpot Theory

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:10:14 -0800 (PST)

> Lee Daniel Crocker ( wrote:
> >
> >I like to use that term specifically for people who
> >spend most of their time arguing definitions, rather
> >than actual substance and content, and who seem to
> >think that it is an exercise of reason to do so.
> IAN: So that's your definition of "crackpot."
> Well, you just fulfilled it. Now how about
> putting some substance where you "mouth" is.
> You allege without evidence that there exists
> somewhere a shortfall between "arguments pre-
> sented" (although you have not indicated which
> ones these are) and "actual substance and con-
> tent." So where, pray tell, is the "actual
> substance and content" of your argument?

There is none, as you correctly point out, nor did I
claim there was any. My post was as vacuous as the
one it replied to, to make an emotional impression
with no substance. I never said such activity was
wrong--just that I tend to label as "crackpots"
those who do nothing else.

Definitions are the groundwork from where argument
begins: to call a definition "argument" is like
calling a dish washer a chef--sure, you can't enjoy
the food without clean dishes, but that's not where
the real meat is.

Of course, in that last paragraph, I am referring to
the substantive difference between definitions and
arguments, which you are welcome to use different
words for if you prefer.

Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC