stupid ideas

Anton Sherwood (dasher@netcom.com)
Sat, 7 Jun 1997 20:23:25 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Michael Lorrey: "Re: SOC: Crime rates down again"
Previous message: Natasha V. More: "Re: CyberSEX"
Next in thread: YakWax@AOL.COM: "Re: stupid ideas"
Maybe reply: YakWax@AOL.COM: "Re: stupid ideas"
Maybe reply: Hagbard Celine: "Re: stupid ideas"

quoth David Laws
: An idea must be expressed and debated before it can be finally classed
: 'stupid'. A 'doctor' in the 18th century would have considered the idea of
: NOT bleeding an ailing individual 'stupid'.

Fine. Is it okay if I make an initial estimate of an idea's stupidity,
and concentrate on the least-stupid-appearing first, or do you insist that
all ideas get equal attention until PROVEN stupid?

Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com

Next message: Michael Lorrey: "Re: SOC: Crime rates down again"
Previous message: Natasha V. More: "Re: CyberSEX"
Next in thread: YakWax@AOL.COM: "Re: stupid ideas"
Maybe reply: YakWax@AOL.COM: "Re: stupid ideas"
Maybe reply: Hagbard Celine: "Re: stupid ideas"