Pat's posts don't take all of us to a dead end - quite the opposite for me, I understand the connections between science and scripture that he applies. Could the dead end be your own perception of what you are reading, Ian? Your opinion on whether or not what he writes is suited for this group is just that - your personal opinion. I don't find it appropriate.
On Jan 26, 11:57 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat, > > I do agree that, in a discussion, especially a good one, it's not uncommon > for the participants to assume the roles of student and teacher. That's not > particularly the feeling I've got from your recent posts, which, in my > opinion, have been a little didactic. Maybe preachy. > > That's the lesser of my issues, though. > > Unlike Molly, I neither like nor dislike what you have to say. I don't care > if there is a God or isn't, whether the universe is a singular > super-consciousness, or whether the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/etc are true or the > rantings of a drugged horse. It's frankly not on my radar. My concern is > that I don't think you can see the absolute intellectual dead-end of where > you theory takes every topic? Even the funny thread about pygmies and > communion... another victim of your reductionism. > > I do value your knowledge a great deal, but I think you're in a rut that you > can probably only work out by writing proper words in proper books. > > Ian > > 2010/1/26 Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > On 25 Jan, 08:39, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat, > > > > I am not upset by your claims, I'm only concerned (as a moderator) by > > your > > > increasingly didactic style and (as a fellow debater) by your blanket > > > reductionism of all arguments down to a single capitalised word. I find > > this > > > distilling of everything down to the same conclusion -- whether right or > > > wrong -- stifling to debate. > > > Ian, I'm hoping you'll respond to this. I understand that you're > > concerned that I might be coming across more as a teacher than a > > 'fellow' and I'll take that on board. However, have you considered > > that, in a discussion, any of us may teach one another and any of us > > may learn from one another? This means that, at some points, some of > > us 'will appear to be teachers' and some of us 'will appear to be > > students'. What I've learned from this response of yours is that you > > don't want to be preached to. That's OK. I'm not preaching. There > > is a difference between preaching and teaching. All of us teach and > > learn; this is a desirable effect OF debate. Just because some of > > your opinions are opposed to some of mine shouldn't cause you that > > level of concern. Rather, it should point out to you that my theories > > are developing and I am, as I have always done, used this forum as a > > sounding board. > > > > Whilst I'll continue to read your posts as a moderator, I don't think > > I'll > > > take part in a discussion with you right now. > > > Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, though, you will have read what I > > wrote above. > > > > Ian > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
