For the record, Marcus, I have often agreed with things you have said here. Sometimes I say so; sometimes I let others say so. I don't respond to every post, regardless of my agreement or non-agreement. My treatment of you in that respect is no different from my treatment of, say, Jim Frysinger, Jim Elwell, Joe Reid, or any others on this list.
What I have never done is claim to disagree with you when I do, in fact, agree with you. If that is your claim, then I'm at a loss to understand it. I stand by my request to stick to SI. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Ma Be >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 08:20 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:23494] Re: Let's Stick to SI > > >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
