> >> So you are playing games. > >> > > > > Why should I take either of you seriously? > > > You shouldn't take me seriously.
Actually I don't, and I think we have an understanding of each other on this point. ;) And frankly I think it's helped our dialog tremendously. :) > But Geoff is talking seriously, so > even > if you don't agree with him an educated person would take him seriously > (or at least pretend to). He is not taking anything seriously but his own opinion. I tried taking his arguments seriously, and I seriously extended my own points and counter-points on many occasions, but he simply doesn't want to confront information that takes him out of his comfort zone without making it about the other person's mental health, or some kind of group-think referendum. This latest "observation" about how everyone agrees with his definition of conspiracy theorist and his ham-fisted way of attempting once again to attach that label to me after I effectively demolished his argument point-by-point in a separate thread, and despite the fact that this post itself has nothing whatever to do with conspiracies, proves how un-seriously he's taking any debate. What's amusing about this in the context of this thread is that I agree with Vince (mark it on your calendar ;) ), and not Mike----yet Geoff nevertheless sees what he wants to see: Mike and Bob always on the "same team" and both suffering the same malady he has conveniently diagnosed for us. Which is what you do, which is why I lump Geoff with you in terms of seriousness. At least you and I can occasionally jump over a cliff on different tethers and poke each other in the eye good-naturedly on the way down. I don't even get to have that kind of fun with Geoff, who is about as intellectually curious as a pet rock. I thought he was Christian, so I tried harder in his case. But he's one of those neutered Christians who thinks it's more important to compartmentalize one's faith in such a way as not to disturb any of his secular friends or challenge their opinions. So he's spiritually dysfunctional. Whatever worship he may experience in his church he binds down, so that it has no chance whatever of affecting his worldly political views. He's probably rationalized that the opposite is true by embracing the Left's alleged love of the poor and downtrodden, as some kind of Christian *political* duty. (This by the way is precisely what Liberation Theology in all its forms attempts to do: neuter Christ's message of eternal salvation so it sounds just like Che Guevara's and Fidel Castro's social gospel of societal salvation.) So he's as blind as everybody else to the rise of a dangerous demagogue and false messiah in Obama. Instead of engage the evidence, he attacks me personally. Well, let's get it on then! I can play that game. As you know. :) - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
