On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:23:19 Bill Potts wrote: >Marcus: > >I respect your right to believe bible stories as though they were historical >fact.
Unfortunately your comment below clearly negates your "show of respect" above! Why? If you *really* 'respect' my (or anybody else's for that matter!...) 'right to believe bible stories' you would NOT *judge* my beliefs in such (at a minimum) uncorteous fashion. Certainly words like 'arrogant, annoying' are not indicative of 'respect'!!! What saddens me the most though is your apparent bias against me no matter what I say! I don't recall you having EVER showed agreement with me on ANYTHING I said, even when I knew you were, based on posts you published in this forum! (I DO observe these things!... ;-) ) It's very unfortunate that you seem to let your personal feelings/stereotyping towards me get in the way of objectivity at times. But, don't worry, I won't "return the favor", I promise I'll always look at what you wrote with the (real) respect and objectivity it deserves. Besides, as a true Christian I can't do otherwise... Before I leave you with the above thoughts I feel I do need to comment on your sentence below though. > However, although I can only speak for myself, I suspect very few of >the people on this list share your fundamentalist perspective. It really doesn't matter whether or not others may share in my 'fundamentalist' (SIC) approach to Scriptures or not. My use of the Bible IMHO was fully justifiable as I was trying to address the *scientific* point of why the utils theory is what it is, a dogmatic yet very valid concept to use in studying human behavior! I felt it was important to use it to make a case as like "even Scriptures agree" with that *scientific* concept, despite its evidently NOT being a book of science! In other words, *in essence*, basically, even Scriptures, a "non-scientific" book agree or indicate that this approach is sound. Finally, as for your statement below: >I, for one, find your proselytization (which is what the paragraphs below >amount to) No, they're not! As I explained above 'proselytization' had nothing to do with it. > arrogant, annoying and, more to the point, totally irrelevant to >the topic of SI. > I don't call your points-of-view, arguing lines of thought and personal beliefs and values that! But I guess I can only just hope that next time you'll exercise some more moderation and *real respect* towards what I think and say in this forum. Such words above are not conducive to healthy discussions, positive attitude and constructive criticism. I know you can do a lot better than that. So I sincerely hope you will... (and no, this is not a threat or anything like that, but rather wishful thinking that the atmosphere here be somewhat less adversarial on your part!...) Respectfully, Marcus >Bill Potts, CMS >Roseville, CA >http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >>Behalf Of Ma Be >>Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 09:35 >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:23460] Re: Experimentaleconomicsvalidatesfree-market >>metrication >> > >>Human beings are very complex subjects. When God created us He >>did it according to His own image. In His view, His creatures >>would (or should) NOT be happy by having "too much freedom". So, >>in essence, the increase in *number* of certain freedoms (like in >>my example of freedom to kill) may NOT translate into 'maximizing >>people's freedom', but 'restricting' certain particular ones would! >> >>In His wisdom God knew that the human race should not be *totally* >>free to do *absolutely WHATEVER* it pleased him/her, hence He gave >>us His 10 commandments to drive that point home clearly. He saw >>in His infinite wisdom that violating certain principles would >>only harm us. The apostle Paul makes a very important statement >>in Scriptures to illustrate this principle when he said: "all >>things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" 1 Co. 6 :12. >> >>Unfortunately Adam & Eve learned that lesson the hard way and >>thought they could have the fruit and 'maximize their personal >>freedom'. Had they *restricted* themselves from that hideous >>fruit and we would certainly not be discussing metrication here >>today... :-) >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
