Errany is Till's writings
. Richard Jones dick_jones@usa.net
Sat, 11 Apr 1998 15:22:20 (00892329740, ww0a-cDkPws2437@netaddress.usa.net)
TILL
I would say that it is far more likely that Jones is a believer in
assholery.
Well, Till, for the first time since I've observed you,
you may just be right. I certainly believe not only in
you but in such things as Greg, Nancy, and James Todd,
prime examples of some of the largest (and smelliest)
assholery products on the net.
>TILL
>. I have not found anything in your writing to indicate that you are
a
>good thinker, but I have seen much (your careless mistakes included)
to
>suggest that you are not a good thinker.
>
>TERRY
>I have not found anything in your writing to indicate that
>you are a good thinker either, and as I said I am not in
>this for the English lesson.
Just as well, since Till clearly demonstrates he values
form over substance, thus is incompetent to teach English
above the level of elementary school.
All those on this list seem to ignore netiquette, as they
do all other human morality with which they disagree, since
it's considered most impolite on the net to even mention
misspellings, typos, or incorrect grammar. This medium is
considered vocal, not written, due to its immediacy.
Till:
>By the way, I corrected your spelling of "atheist" on the
>subject line.
Gross breech of netiquette, Till.
Till:
>I will express a view on this subject that I have stated many times
>before.
>Many errors in postings result from the sheer laziness of the writer
in
>not
>being interested enough in his reader to proofread and revise his/her
>work.
>The fact that errors may occur in one's writing doesn't mean anything
>one
>way or the other about the truth or falsity of whatever he/she may be
>arguing. However, I found in teaching college writing that there is
a
>high
>degree of correlation in good thinking and good writing. In other
>words,
>those who could write well were usually good thinkers, and I found
few
>exceptions to that in my teaching career.
This means nothing, Till, since you have never displayed any
indication that you are a "good thinker" nor that you know
what good thinking is, nor that you're capable of teaching
an adult anything about English or anything else. You taught
only form, not substance, never recognizing anything of
substance, just as you do on this list.
Till:
>Therefore, since God has free will but cannot do anything that is
>morally
>wrong, why couldn't God have created humans with free will but a
nature
>that
>could not do anything morally wrong?
He did, Till. Why would you ever imagine He didn't?
>SJANE
>Dave, you'll have to look at the errancy archives to see what "Mr.
>Jones" is all about. He has a web page that you can visit to read
his
>philosophical ramblings.
>He has left the list, at least he said he was leaving, and we are
>better off without him.
Wrong, fatass, that's not what I said. Go back and read
what I really said instead of what you imagine I said. I
have neither left the list, nor do you have any idea what
better off means in this case. Try using your head for
something besides sex.
>SJANE
>I should have communicated more clearly, "Mr. Jones'" web site is
>where you will find what he claims to believe in. His site is full
of
>his thoughts on religion, god, and the state of human beings. You
can
>find a link to his web page in his posts on the archive. I hope you
>have a strong stomach!
Wrong as usual, fatass. I don't believe in anything, which
you could have discovered if you had actually read and
understood my web pages. There is nothing in my philosophy
not found in classic philosophy, but then you clearly know
nothing of classic philosophy, just as you clearly know
nothing of either the Bible or science. You're only a
wiseass fool. The wise may read
http://www.iland.net/~box191/phil2.htm
Does reality always upset your tummy? Maybe you're preggie?
You do seem to "think" with your hormones, come to think
of it.
>SJANE
> Look at all of
>those crazy rules he made in the OT! And if you didn't follow those
>rules you were executed without due process.
What figment of your imagination is this, fatass? Due
process is an imaginary concept created by a few
Americans. You imagine there's something wrong with
executing criminals, do you? Rhetorical only, fatass,
as I don't "argue" with fools.
>JOHN HAMILTON
>It has yet to be shown that theists have an objective source.
Their objective source is reality, Hamilton, something with
which you have only an accidental, nodding acquaintance, in
common with the majority on this list, I might add.
Dick Jones
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com