On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:04 am, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, William T Goodall wrote:
On 3 Nov 2003, at 7:17 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: religious/political question Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 17:44:04 +0000
On 2 Nov 2003, at 4:54 pm, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 Nov 2003, at 9:38 pm, Jim Sharkey wrote:
The Fool wrote:<SNIP further rantings>So when andrew crystal starts building concentration camps and death camps, for atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists
Considering that you have made it clear you would cheerfully eliminate all religions if given your druthers, I find this over-the-top hysteria pretty darn ironic. Talk about double-speak.
The method religion has usually used to eliminate disagreement is to
eliminate those who disagree. The freethinker's approach to
eliminating
religion is through information, debate and education.
Just as you don't convert many people to religion these days by
telling
them to repent or they'll go to hell, telling them they're dead
wrong and
idiots for believing in any sort of god isn't going to go over well,
either.
"Debate" doesn't mean slamming the opposite view and getting hyperbolically hysterical. *That* is the problem a number of folks here are having with how The Fool is saying what he's saying.
I'd suggest that he re-think his debating tactics on this matter if he wants to convert anyone to his point of view on it.
Well I think it is very generous of The Fool to try and help the
memetically handicapped on the list with their affliction in the face
of a notable lack of gratitude, or even downright hostility.
If you seriously think we should be grateful to you both for insulting
the intelligence of list members and repeated smug declarations of
intolerance toward their beliefs then y'all need to share whatever
you're smoking with the rest of us.
As Jim so wisely said, the arrogant, condescending attitude you're adopting isn't likely to win you any support.
Jon
Is that a 'no' ?
Whatever it was, it was more tactful than a number of the things The Fool
has said.
Then again, on *occasion*, being blunt is what's called for. I just don't
think this is one such occasion.
Julia
working very hard on "tact" for a number of years now -- how'm I doing?
I think you may have confused "tact" with "tactile" on some occasions :)
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Those who study history are doomed to repeat it.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
