I have well functioning delete and spam filter buttons that I can
use if things get out of hand on my end. ;-)
On 8/22/2012 3:23 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, my stance as well on (even controversial) argumentation.
HOWEVER (isn't one everywhere?)
the 'advancement' one achieves by certain explanations might 'color'
one's own ideas into shades unwanted. If you read a well formulated
argument it inevitably sticks in your mind and later is hard to
separate. A reason why most religious people cannot accept logical
(scientific) refutation and fall back into old meme superstition.
I appreciate Roger's knowledgeability in ancient (mostly idealistic)
theories but his fundamental color is biblical FAITH. I know him from
another (nonreligious) list, where I asked the moderator to curtail
the amount of those overwhelmingly religious postings - and he did.
Roger is still on, but hiding some of his true colors (mostly). (A
reason why I refrained from responding to his posts. I want to keep
friendly to that other list, too.)
You are absolutely right about the topical invigorating by the deluge
of posts - add to it that Roger starts from a one-sided position
only. Most discussions on the Everything list are also one-sided, but
as in the past - from ANOTHER side. (Bruno is close to faithfulness,
not a formal religion though, but his mind-body is close to a 'soul'
I used to be a Catholic, then reincarnationalistic (Ouija-board fan),
now I can't include into my ongoing worldview /(agnosticism, based on
the 'infinite complexity', - to us unknowable in toto)/ WHAT may
remain after death of our (human? with trillion microbial biomes)
complexity that is destroyed - reshaped */AS a memory of ourselves/*.
Which part would 'remember' and 'respond' to a destroyed complexity
(us) after "we are gone"? - Surviving parts MAY connect to different
complexities and 'live'(?) as such.
It is a pity that Adam and Eve are not 'real'.
And do not forget my distinction for the physical world (as we pretend
to know it): *a figment of _yesterday's_ stance*.
Leibnitz etc.? I respect those oldies of those (their) times.
Best to you
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote:
(re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your
immense educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills
etc.) 'occupied' this list now for some weeks in the controversy
by a (I wish I had a better distinction) religious(?) faith-based
mindset vs. the well established and decades-long working
ensemble of the list - on other grounds.
The participants on this list are strong minds and well
established, you have little chance to convert them - although
some of us linger into close-to-religious belief systems, which
may be a definitional problem (e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.).
You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the
majority is closer to your own belief system. YET:
Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your
posting fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy!
Please, consider this a friendly remark.
I think that is is sometimes a good thing to have use shaken
out of our doldrums! I like Roger's contributions! They have
already helped be make some great advances in my own work. ;-)
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen
I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.
Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
post! Why are you so wrong.
I /(am?)/ glad Roger cleared that up. :-)
"Shut up he explained."
--- Ring Lardner
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at