I'm just a lurker
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 12:03:37 -0800 (00918007417, 2.2.32.19990202200337.00882fcc@midwest.net)
At 12:21 AM 2/2/99 -0500, Achilles wrote:
>On 1 Feb 99, at 22:02, Farrell Till wrote:
>
>> At 03:08 PM 2/1/99 -0500, Achilles wrote:
>>
>> >If Till wants to use "atheist" with the non-standard meaning he ascribes to
>> it,
>> >that's his choice to make. I am no English-snob that will argue the
"correct"
>> >meaning of a term - in fact I find those who do to be quite annoying. I
would
>> >only suggest that if he, or you, or anyone else, insists on using a word
in a
>> >sense which is not consistent with common usage you should keep in mind the
>> >fact that most people will not understand it the way that you mean it,
and you
>> >should not be surprised or offended by their misunderstanding.
>> >
>>
>> TILL
>> I was going to drop this matter, Achilles, but enough is enough. The
>
>Achilles
>I had dropped the matter, till what's his name chose to bring it back up. Your
>phrasing ("enough is enough") leads me to believe you found my post to be
>insulting or provoking in some way? I assure you it was not so intended, and I
>am at a loss to understand why you would read it that way.
>
TILL
No, I didn't find it to be insulting. You should know me well enough by now
to know that insults don't bother me. I found your posting to show a
deplorable lack of information about how the word "atheism" is used by most
people who are atheists.
Since you said in the part of your posting I am snipping that you agree the
definition that I gave of atheism is defensible, then I assume you will
agree that there is no need to continue this thread. I'll just say that
"my" definition is not only defensible but is the sense that most atheists
intend when they apply the word to themselves.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net