If I was uncivil, I apologize. I said what it appeared to me to be, but I may be wrong. At any rate, this was addressed, not to those who considered the plea ineffective, but those who began religious arguments.
Pat http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > Subject: Re: Wife's suggestion! > From: char...@culturelist.org > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:24:50 +1000 > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > > > On 23/09/2009, at 2:37 AM, Pat Mathews wrote: > > > We started with a plea for civility and niceness. Because it invoked > > religion and the name of Jesus, the thread was promptly taken over > > by those who felt it their bounden duty to object to the Christian > > content - not on the grunds that they were not Christian, but > > because they consider it their bounden duty to attack Christianity > > whenever and wherever they see it, apparently, as evil, > > superstitious, and whatever else they object to. > > > > This is not civil > > Um. No, ascribing false motive to others and lumping all "objecters" > together is not civil. > > Arguing whether something is effective because it invokes "What would > Jesus do?" is not the same as attacking Christianity. > > Charlie. > > _______________________________________________ > http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com >
_______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
