XXXX
One of the most important bits of information I acquired from my three years at a XXXX college (I transferred to XXX College in XXX from XXX) was presented in my very first semester in Philosophy 201: Introduction to Logic. So taken was I by the means of thinking with reason that this course offered, that I made the decision to fill my elective course slots with courses in epistemology, existential phenomenology, and an honors seminar in advanced symbolic logic. I make this point to refer you to the basics of truth tables, syllogisms and the analysis of propositions, all of which, you, an expert in statistics, should have some knowledge. By acknowledging the existence of the notions these basic philosophical tenets offer the clear-thinking man, we can proceed into my comments regarding your letter found in the current STEREOPHILE.

Please keep in mind that I have no problem with your basic thesis that an editor can publish whatever he wishes in his editorials. Such writing is often intended to stimulate the reader in the hopes that he will accept the author's point of view, and act in a manner that benefits the essay's cause. Such has always been the case. Some of the greatest political writers of the past several centuries have used the editorial essay to promote a cause -- Hamilton, Paine, Jefferson, de Toqueville and Orwell -- just to name those that immediately come to mind. That each of these great thinkers were aware of Aristotelian logic is a given. Even in this country (in centuries past, before the liberals mucked it up) some attention had been paid to the early great thinkers -- Plato, Aristotle et al -- in our educational system, and to the contributions to civilization each of them made. Whether Larry Archibald embraces the ideas of Universal or Particular Affirmatives and Negatives is questionable; but his editorial (and your letter) appear to deny the merit of such clear thinking. To wit: All kangaroos are marsupials does not proove that all marsupials are kangaroos; just as all liberals are idiots does not proove that all idiots are liberals. Paraphrasing the section on Copi's discussion of Venn diagrams, there must be at least one idiot who is not a liberal. (It may be difficult to prove, but logicians insist that such universal affirmatives ultimately proove fallacious.) Which brings me to your letter.

I quote: "But why argue with a group that seems to have a fascination with the very personal and very private apects of people's lives?" And later, "Perhaps the letter writers can't address any thought that is in opposition to their own narrow, bigoted, and hate-filled belief system." Now I ask, on what basis can you make such statements? Except that I find your statements to be more true of liberals than conservatives (being a libertarian, I dismiss their claims too), one can make such an inference from them only on the basis of a total experience. Just how many non-liberals did you survey anyway? Did those you surveyed claim to speak for all of us? Referring to the latter of these two quotes, it seems to me that because the great mass of American unintelligentsia is liberal, it must follow that the liberal press caters, in large part, to the " narrow, bigoted, and hate-filled belief system" of at least some liberals, such as television news viewers, newspaper readers and would-be audio critics. Did it ever occur to you that as a subscriber to a magazine such as STEREOPHILE, many would PREFER not to see such drivel taking up space? As a realist, I can simply choose to pass over it, although many others thought it important enough to write their letters. (Rest assured, I will not renew.) I would also PREFER that the media pay less attention to the President's sex life. There are sufficient valid news stories to accomodate a thirty-minute network broadcast, or the front page of a good newspaper without resorting to such dreck. What is most sad of this, though, is that much of the news is conveyed with a liberal slant. But to sum it up, although I do not consider myself a conservative, Joe, I take insult from your comments about those who do not sympathize with the liberal views of you or Larry Archibald. Your letter shows that you are, sir, a scoundrel and a horse's ass.