rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/09/85)
[Believe it or not, there is something germane to the subject of religion included in this article (towards the end).] > Look Rich, please don't believe that I think just because I quote someone > that that 'proves' it. Of course that's silly. It's silly of you to think > I think that way! [ARNDT] Of course. But, then again, why is it that after quoting someone, you don't bother to explain WHY the statement "proves it". Is it because you DO assume that quoting someone "proves it" (as you expect others to do as well)? Or is it because of some lack of ability to understand or explain the reasons why a particular statement might be true or false? > Even the great YOU resorted to quoting a scholarly article to me! So take > your own medicine! Yes. It was one of the better pieces of satire I've ever written. (Remember satire, Ken?) Because it showed you as being stupid and/or dense enough to believe that it might have been a real article being quoted. (Who would accept an excerpt that quoted things like "at face ... value" with 'dots' intact? Who would believe it to be real? Apparently YOU would. Which says quite a lot about the level of investigation you put into your "research".) I guess we know that such sources are the only authorities you accept (e.g., certain books reputed to be of divine origin? ...), instead of the process that led those you quote to whatever conclusions they've come to. From your discourse on the net, you've clearly shown that you are UNABLE to follow such a process or engage in one yourself. Which makes what you have to say worthless in the extreme. Period. > Those who deride the use of quotes from people who have experience on the > topic at hand only reveal their own ingnorance. That's YOU!!!! As for who > Blake is, ask an English major. I did. Apparently you must have meant Col. Henry Blake from the TV series/ movie/book M*A*S*H. Is it true that *he* said (with "great insight", you believe) that remark about religion? ("Man MUST and will have religion." ["Or else what?" one might ask...] ) What is the "great insight", Ken? Can you explain what the insightfulness in the statement is? (Beyond the fact that he showed the "insightfulness" to hold the same position as you.) I sincerely doubt it. (Amazing how, in a later article, Ken rates my intellectual prowess based on whether or not I know who Blake [and Shakespeare] were. Both ethno- centric and vacuous to assume that intelligence or correctness can be judged by whether or not you are "learned" [or are well versed about "learned" people]. So, Ken, rather than saying "See? He doesn't know who Blake is! Thus his thinking is wrong!", try saying "The reason Blake's statement was true is because ... " But include something of substance instead of "...") I'd recommend that the silliness regarding Ken's "researching" and "debating" be removed from net.religion, since the discussion is hardly germane to the subject of religion anymore. Except in one respect: Ken has shown us the mindset of the person who "researches" his beliefs by seeking out "learned" people who may agree with his preconceived viewpoints and quoting from their work. Ken has not shown the ability to COMPREHEND what he has quoting, or to explain why it's any more viable than something he (or I) would say. He does not (cannot?) analyze WHY the person whose words he's quoted may or may not be correct in their assessment. And in that, he is hardly alone. Just take one look at the way some people treat certain books (and make assumptions about them of a type no different from those Ken makes about HIS "sources"). I recommend taking it all offline. I will answer as yet unwritten attacks from Ken now by saying what an honor it is to be attacked by someone so well versed in manipulative rhetorical gibberish. I will answer real substantive points from Ken if and when they appear. -- "Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if I get enough money I can make it into a concept." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (01/11/85)
> I'd recommend that the silliness regarding Ken's "researching" and "debating" > be removed from net.religion, since the discussion is hardly germane to the > subject of religion anymore. Except in one respect: Ken has shown us the > mindset of the person who "researches" his beliefs by seeking out "learned" > people who may agree with his preconceived viewpoints and quoting from their > work. Ken has not shown the ability to COMPREHEND what he has quoting, or to > explain why it's any more viable than something he (or I) would say. He does > not (cannot?) analyze WHY the person whose words he's quoted may or may not be > correct in their assessment. And in that, he is hardly alone. Just take one > look at the way some people treat certain books (and make assumptions about > them of a type no different from those Ken makes about HIS "sources"). But Ken also quotes from people he *disagrees* with. It is also silly to berate a person because he *does* read. > > I recommend taking it all offline. I will answer as yet unwritten attacks from > Ken now by saying what an honor it is to be attacked by someone so well versed > in manipulative rhetorical gibberish. I will answer real substantive points > from Ken if and when they appear. I recommend leaving it online. I enjoy reading this discussion. But I do notice that Rich, for all his swagger about rational discussion, resorts to "manipulative rhetorical gibberish" himself when he can't come up with answers to Ken's questions... It's fine to berate such behavior, I guess. But then to engage in it oneself...? Rational? Bull. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | "And the streets shall be full of boys and girls playing --+-- in the streets thereof..." | Zechariah 8:5 |
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (01/17/85)
In article <361@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes in reply to Ken Ardnt: > >> Even the great YOU resorted to quoting a scholarly article to me! So take >> your own medicine! > >Yes. It was one of the better pieces of satire I've ever written. (Remember >satire, Ken?) Because it showed you as being stupid and/or dense enough to >believe that it might have been a real article being quoted. (Who would >accept an excerpt that quoted things like "at face ... value" with 'dots' >intact? Who would believe it to be real? Apparently YOU would. Which says >quite a lot about the level of investigation you put into your "research".) I >guess we know that such sources are the only authorities you accept (e.g., >certain books reputed to be of divine origin? ...), instead of the process that >led those you quote to whatever conclusions they've come to. From your >discourse on the net, you've clearly shown that you are UNABLE to follow such a >process or engage in one yourself. Which makes what you have to say worthless >in the extreme. Period. > I would be interested to find out from what source you obtain your knowledge, facts, etc. Ken A. is using the knowledge of many others to prove a point. It is true that he should state more of his own opinions within his postings but that's not what I want to discuss here. If you do not believe in taking other's knowledge and using it to broaden your horizons than what is the source that you derive new knowledge from? I cannot beleive that you sat in your high school classrooms refusing to believe the quotes of other's knowledge written in the textbooks. Did you request to research the facts put forth until you had found out for yourself whether they were true? Almost all knowledge that we acquire during the course of our lives was found and studied and laid out by someone other than ourselves. Of course we must be carefull to not take just any and all facts at face value, but there are some that we just cannot spend the time to substantiate or refute to a full extent. These "facts" we must either believe on faith, or disbelieve because of ignorance. If you chose to only believe in things that you yourself can fully substantiate than you will be in a sorry state. For example, how do you know that the earth is round? Probably because of the eyewitnesses of astronauts (sp?), etc. But you yourself have never been in space to verify the fact as true, have you. This is only a basic example, there can be many others. I just wanted to point out that most of what a person knows is derived from someone elses knowledge, and not by experience. ----------------- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -------