Bad Language, RICHARD OF OREGON
walter nusbaum nusbaum@iglobal.net
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:04:22 -0600 (00886248262, 19980131060421343.AAA196@nusbaum.iglobal.net)
Walt(1/30)
At 04:38 PM 1/30/98 -0800, Richard Packham wrote:
>WALT wrote, in response to TILL:
(SNIP)
>
>RICHARD IN OREGON writes:
>
> I heartily endorse Walt's suggestion that we are more likely to be heard
>if we avoid gratuitous vulgarity. I should like to suggest that gratuitous
>meanness, superciliousness, humiliation, unmerciful cockiness at our own
>superior knowledge can also do more harm than good.
>
> I would like to think that the purpose of a discussion group like this is
>to discuss biblical errancy with those who believe in inerrancy and to
>conduct those discussions in such a way that the inerrantist will (probably
>only gradually) come to realize the error of his position.
>
> In order to achieve that purpose, we have to have inerrantists in the
>group. One subscriber wondered why we don't have any, and commented, "where
>are the fuckin fundies?"
>
> I believe his question, and the way it was phrased, answers itself.
>Membership in this group is voluntary, and I would certainly leave if I were
>referred to in that way. (I notice, however, that if I offend Till
>sufficiently, I will not be allowed to leave.)
>
> One Christian who is getting the treatment right now is Pat Vanhoose. She
>(some of you have referred to Pat as "he") joined this group at my
>suggestion a couple of weeks ago. I have never met her personally, but we
>became acquainted some months ago through another group discussing
>Mormonism. I am a former Mormon; her son has become a Mormon. We had some
>private e-mail discussions about Christianity, and I got the impression that
>she was one of the few Christians with whom one could discuss religion on a
>relatively rational basis. She seemed to me to be a very gracious and
>pleasant lady.
>
> So I suggested to Pat that she subscribe here. Unfortunately, it was when
>the latest Christian to be thrown to the Errancy lions was just being torn
>to pieces and gleefully devoured, amid frenzied spewing of vulgar language
>(I guess the taste of blood does that). Poor Pat sent me a private e-mail,
>asking me just what the purpose of this group was: it seemed to be to lure
>Christians in and then pummel them. I could understand her feelings. I am
>truly surprised to see that she has stuck it out this long.
>
> In my professional life I have been a teacher and a lawyer. In both
>professions one is trying to impart information and to convince the listener
>to accept that information. It is a paramount principle in both professions
>that you will not accomplish your purpose if you antagonize, alienate, or
>otherwise lose your audience. That same principle applies here, I think.
>
> I would not presume to dictate to subscribers in this group how you should
>conduct yourselves. But I beg you to consider the ultimate effect of the
>tone and language of your posts will be on the people whom it is most
>important to reach.
>
>RICHARD IN OREGON
>
WALT
Richard,
Thanks for your comments.(I wish I had said some of them, and maybe I will).
:) You have truly fleshed out what I was trying to say, but could not manage
to do as well as you have. FWIW, from postings both private and to the list,
the "score" is eight in support and one and one-half(Farrell being the 1/2)
in opposition. I put the listmeister in the middle, but I'm certain we will
be apprised of his actual position.
Best wishes,
Walt (in Texas)