An abundance of angry little Atheist
Jim Carroll jimcrl@email.msn.com
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 06:18:52 -0500 (00886267132, 0c90e0018231f18UPIMSSMTPUSR03@email.msn.com)
Thank you for this! Well, put! Its about time this was address. You would
think that in a group of people who clam to be enlightened. Better manners
would prevail. After looking at some of these post,
I really wonder if there is any real intellectual discussion to be found
here.
The one or two really intelligent postings I have read were never debated or
even replied too. Looks to me as if the group has an abundance of angry
little Atheist in it. Who take great delight in betting up little
Christians sheepoles. As irritating as these people might be to you.
Without there presents in this forum it serves little purpose then to stroke
the egos of other Atheists in the group.
We can all sit around and tell each other how right we are about everything.
Boy! Won't that be fun! The use of vulgarities and cheep stabs at a person
intelligence, posting of privet emails are really out of place in a public
forum.
It offers nothing to educate, enlighten, or add to the pleaser of a
discussion group.
Care to debate this?
Come right on!
Jim Carroll
One day in a more enlightened world,
Christianity will be viewed in museums,
For the dried up enchant relic it truly is.
Jim Carroll
JimCrl@email.msn.com
<snip>
-----Original Message-----
From: walter nusbaum <nusbaum@iglobal.net>
To: errancy@infidels.org <errancy@infidels.org>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Bad Language, RICHARD OF OREGON
>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)
>
>