rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (01/01/70)
>> Seriously, isn't it ironic that someone whose belief system doesn't foster >> notions of a deity has presumptions about what "talking to god is supposed to >> do". :-? [ROSEN] > No more ironic than the presumptions manifest in your original article. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Gee, Paul, I thought you were among those who volunteered never to address or respond to anything I ever said ever again. Or did you mean only that you would do so when an opportunity evinced itself for you to extract one sentence or so from one of my articles, quote it completely out of context (or, as above, in no context at all---who's going to search back through six months of prose to find out exactly which article you're referring to, esp. since it's been expired by now), and finally, make some supposedly poignant or wry comment. Grow up. The article Paul quoted from in one in which I reply to Laura's remarks about my article on my "religiou experience". Which presumptions he is referring to from that article remain unclear because, in an almost Bickfordian manner, he simply asserts something about my "presumptions" and walks away smiling smugly to himself about how he just "got" Rich Rosen. Wingate (et al) has tactics for attempting to silencing me: smear tactics, use of bogus statistics, misquoting to make me look bad (or worse than I already am :-). I know that asking a question of Paul like: "Why don't you elaborate on precisely what you found wrong with the original article?" might be construed as being a tactic in attempting to silence him, since it has been shown that asking such questions results in silence so often. It would probably work with more success than Charley's tactics, too. But I ask the question anyway. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/09/85)
> >> Seriously, isn't it ironic that someone whose belief system doesn't foster > >> notions of a deity has presumptions about what "talking to god is supposed to > >> do". :-? [ROSEN] > > > No more ironic than the presumptions manifest in your original article. > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | > Gee, Paul, I thought you were among those who volunteered never to address > or respond to anything I ever said ever again. Or did you mean only that > you would do so when an opportunity evinced itself for you to extract one > sentence or so from one of my articles, quote it completely out of context > (or, as above, in no context at all---who's going to search back through > six months of prose to find out exactly which article you're referring to, > esp. since it's been expired by now), and finally, make some supposedly > poignant or wry comment. Grow up. It wasn't expired on my machine. Your presumptions were clear. You had to have had some idea about what talking to God meant in order to write your article. And your belief system doesn't foster notions of a diety. Hence the irony. And what's this volunteering stuff? Did I say that? > The article Paul quoted from in one in which I reply to Laura's remarks > about my article on my "religiou experience". Which presumptions he is > referring to from that article remain unclear because, in an almost > Bickfordian manner, he simply asserts something about my "presumptions" > and walks away smiling smugly to himself about how he just "got" Rich Rosen. Pshaw. Presumptions explained above. Smug? Not really. Maybe I should say "you wish!". > Wingate (et al) has tactics for attempting to silencing me: smear tactics, > use of bogus statistics, misquoting to make me look bad (or worse than I > already am :-). I know that asking a question of Paul like: "Why don't > you elaborate on precisely what you found wrong with the original article?" > might be construed as being a tactic in attempting to silence him, since it > has been shown that asking such questions results in silence so often. It > would probably work with more success than Charley's tactics, too. But I > ask the question anyway. Answered above. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Glory! |