🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan14.183658.14989@amd.com> jmw@brahms.amd.com (Mike Wincn) writes:
>Without better support for your references I can't see how the title fits, 

Which title?  The title of the article?  It's irrelevant, just a thread
marker.

>further, I think that you need to define 'sanity'

Pass.  Next question.

>you made a blanket statement regarding sanity.   

I'll make another one: I don't think I personally know anyone who is
completely sane.  This does not mean that my friends are not dear and
wonderful people, or that I don't love them and care for them, but that's
how I see the world. 

>To the extent that my observations are generally accurate, which is preferred? 

Well, Mike, you have to live with your observations and I have to live with
mine.  I have no intention of challenging your perception of reality since
it has obviously kept you alive for long enough to be workable.  Nor do I 
intend to surrender or debate my perception of reality since I am quite
happy with its performance so far.  In light of the root of this discussion
(is it normal for someone to see back-rubs as being solely a tool to try to
get laid) this is not even relevant.

>While you are at it, how could you impose your own definition of sanity on
>any group of people without intimate knowledge of their lives and their
>way of thinking?  

That's very simple -- it's *MY* definition.  If it does not work for you,
use yours.  We can easily determine the differences in these definitions and
avoid confusion over terminology.  However, I doubt that this is a place to
hold discussions on the taxonomies of definitions and terminologies.

This discussion has ceased to be relevant to this news group.
-- 
Oleg Kiselev, at home			....use the header to find the path