rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/21/85)
>>>Actually, Rich, I didn't really read your little story. [WINGATE] >>(This explains "charley"'s faulty summaries of other articles: he doesn't >>read them.) > Really, Rich, you can come up with a better insult than that. The content of > your story had nothing to do with the point of your article anyway. I didn't see that as an insult. I saw it as factual evidence that you choose not to read, but still choose to comment on what you haven't read. That speaks ill of what you have to say. >>>All your story >>>proves is that you can write fiction. I can make up a story about >>>anything else in the universe too, but it doesn't make the true stories >>>false. >>Ah, yes, true stories... > Care to explain? I was going to ask *you* that question? What about Mike Huybensz's true stories, if you don't accept mine? How "true" are your true stories? Based on the flawed precepts referred to as evidence, I'd say hardly at all. >>>And by the way, your little satire upon christian experiences of God can >>>only be taken as an attack; since christianity seems to be a sore spot >>>with you, why didn't you talk about Allah instead? >>Because it's the Christians who are the ones so adamantly talking about >>their subjective experiences as "true stories". No Muslim has stepped >>forward. Nor has any Jew. Nor anyone else as far as I can see. Also, >>these other people aren't the ones who insist upon their morality as >>societal law. (I know, "chuckles", not you, of course. Which is why your >>stalwart reply to Don Black's hatred consisted of a pithy correction >>followed a meek "me, too".) > Well, you don't bother to attack them, so why should they defend? I don't attack anybody, Charley. I debunk beliefs. (Or at least I try.) > As for > your erroneous comment about morality become law, let me remind you, Rich, > that every country which has explicitly made the morality of a religion the > law of the land is muslim. I fail to see what relevance this statement has. I fear for my very life because certain people in this country would use manipulative propaganda and other means to sway the law of this country into their version of so-called christian morality, you so-called christians don't speak one word of condemnation (praise, yes; condemnation, no), and all you can say is "all the countries where religion is the law of the land are Muslim"????? Have we forgotten what life was like in Europe where religion was law? Inquisitions? Pogroms? Slaughter and massacres and murder? Please have something to say next time you respond by pointing fingers at other religions. > As for your "me-too"ism crack, I do not consider the length of a response to > be of any value in judging its intensity. I am not an expert on the civil > law of Israel. Your comments on this subject give the impression that you > think that anyone who doesn't flame on for 300 lines for every article they > object to is really in support of the article. Either that, or you are so > dishonest that you have already decided that I automatically support > anything having even the remotest claim to Christianity. Gee, I would have thought you would have has something to say about his notions of Jews as a "problem", of how he claims we should tolerate everyone while he denies rights to homosexuals, of how we should "go back" to the old ways, "go back" [sic] to having this country run by Christian morality (?). Your silence implies concurrence. (Actually, your previous postings have come awful close to implying concurrence, too.) So, if you disagree, if you really do believe that you are distinct from Falwellism, speak now or forever hold ... > One simply cannot condemn all the evils of the world; the day is not long > enough in which to do it. Being in a different position with respect to the > Don Blacks of the world, I've concluded that (a) I can't change their minds, > and (2) anyone who I could convince already is aware that they are wrong. > You claim to be reasonable, Rich; that is why I waste my breath on you. On > the day in which I cease forever to reply to you, you will have my > condemnation. Thanks, Charley. Much appreciated. Since you cannot condemn ALL the evils in the world (i.e., not the "minor" ones like the Nazified Christianity that Black proposes), you should concentrate on "serious" ones, like why inverted quizzes about homosexuality are twisted falsehoods, why manipulative proselytizing should not be discouraged, why individual human rights aren't as important as certain other things... Thanks, Charley, for letting us know where the liberal Christian priorities are. Hell, I'm now scared shitless. I really mean that. With people like Charley "unallied" with Falwell (on which side of him?) I have to fear for everything I hold dear! -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr