On 10 Aug 2003 17:12:02 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...

Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what,
four months?

Well I've been good....

Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as
much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a
nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than
just religious nuts.

He was being specific. "Religious" qualified the term, so that
does a pretty good job of trimming down the field. I'm sure
he has about a dozen overall catagories he could trot out.

Tinfoil beanies anyone?

Well yes but I was looking for the foundational definition for a nut.
One that can be applied to all catagories of nuts. But since you
mention tinfoil beanies I think I see what it might be. Perhaps:

Someone who believes something when even a casual examination would
show it to be non-sense. Or perhaps, someone who believes something
without any halfway sensible reasoning to support his conclusions.

Which means someone shouldn't be considered a nut if they haven't
thought the idea through *and* have not acted on the idea (taking
action makes you responsible whether you have thought it through or
not). Or, if someone has a "plausible", if not completely well
founded, basis for believing something. A key character for either of
these persons would be their willingness to listen to and address
arguments against what they believe. A real nutter wouldn't do this.

Of course these are relative definitions so in my opinion they aren't
too good or reliable. An absolute definition would be much better
:^).

I must say it really does amaze me how some people can come to the
conclusions they do :^).

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.