toddv@tekmdp.UUCP (07/19/83)
The use of "[sic]"is unwarranted.
Generally it tells me that the author wasn't able to present a good case to
answer his "opponent" (for lack of a better term) so he resorted to personal
attacks before the public. I consider it a childish practice that
should be avoided by those who wish to be taken seriously.
The topics discussed in this newsgroup are inflammatory enough without adding
fuel to the flames.
If there is something personal you think needs to be commented on, there is
a course to follow.
Send a private letter to someone who uses poor taste or poor grammer or poor
logic or poor whatever. Don't air dirty laundry over the net.
(I'm a little behind in this group, hope this isn't a moot point.)
My keyboard is unfortunately overloaded with work in the real world or I could
really enjoy submiting lots of fun stuff to this newsgroup. I'm working
on a masters degree in biblical studies. (My BS is in computer science.)
Todd Vierheller
UUCP: ...!{ucbvax or decvax}!teklabs!tekmdp!toddv (ignore return address)
CSNET: tekmdp!toddv @ tektronix
ARPA: tekmdp!toddv.tektronix @ rand-relaytim@unc.UUCP (07/22/83)
Here's a recent article from Todd Vierheller, a Master's degree
student in biblical studies. (By the way, the last paragraph of this
article is not connected; it is of general interest to anyone who
reads my criticisms of Christianity.)
The use of "[sic]" is unwarranted. Generally it
tells me that the author wasn't able to present a good
case to answer his "opponent" (for lack of a better
term) so he resorted to personal attacks before the
public. I consider it a childish practice that should
be avoided by those who wish to be taken seriously.
Once again, we see one of the basic Christian principles in
practice: When confronted with alternative explanations of someone
else's behavior, always assume that the worst is true. This principle
does not apply to Christian-Christian discourse. Todd, I have already
said that I use sic to encourage proofreading, because proofreading
discourages logical sloppiness. (It doesn't prevent it, but it does
give you a chance to catch it and correct it.) For you to call me a
liar on this point is itself a childish and unwarranted attack on your
part. I have actually gotten letters supporting my practice of cor-
recting misspellings -- these people felt I was doing them a favor
by providing them with information that helps make their arguments
seem more sound. Sloppy language undermines any argument by the
nature of discussion.
The topics discussed in this newsgroup are
inflammatory enough without adding fuel to the flames.
Then why did you do so, Todd?
If there is something personal you think needs to
be commented on, there is a course to follow. Send a
private letter to someone who uses poor taste or poor
grammer or poor logic or poor whatever. Don't air
dirty laundry over the net.
Right. If I disagree with someone, that is "dirty launndry". Of
course, if Todd disagrees with someone, say about the use of sic, that
is not dirty laundry -- it's a public service. That's why he didn't
have to send me mail, as he suggests is appropriate for such cases.
Another of the basic Christian practical principles: Practice what you
preach, unless you don't want to.
(I'm a little behind in this group, hope this
isn't a moot point.)
"Moot" is not the word. Try "hypocritical".
On another subject: Many people are probably laboring under the
misapprehension that I hate Christians. This is not true; I get along
fine with them on a personal level. They seem no better or worse than
any other group of people when it comes to their daily affairs.
However, I keep away from matters of religion around them, because
their implicit assumption of superiority, also known as smugness, is
one of the most obnoxious things I have ever seen in any human. Look,
people, I've seen a lot of religions, and yours is not so special. If
you want to accept it because you like it best, great, but this stuff
about all the other religions being devil worship and/or delusion
simply has to go! In addition, I feel that Christian policies applied
to a nation would destroy it in the modern day by restricting freedoms
without cause and making a mockery of what liberties would be
retained. If I met Langdon, BIckford, Klick, and so on, I would try
to get along with them, just as I do with everyone. However, they
make this impossible with respect to religion by their dogmatism and
intolerance.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill