seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (02/18/85)
In article <536@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: > >All this is based on an a priori assumption that there IS a god and that THAT >is how he/it is going to behave (a point I've been trying to make to Jeff and >to others for some time). But it's irrelevant to this particular discussion. Also from Rich: >Article 4047 of net.singles: > >> ********* If you want LOVE, get a dog! ********** >> >> Regards, >> Ken Arndt > >I thought it was agreed that there would be no personal ads in net.singles? >Why is Arndt advertising for himself here? >-- >"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr And I thought it was agreed that the truth of Christianity was not going to be questioned in net.religion.christian ? Why are you advertising whatever it is you believe/don't believe here? You are right about one thing. It's irrelevant to this discussion. So why drag it in? _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/ you know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/21/85)
[Is Seifert out to make Hutch's prophecies become reality?] |All this is based on an a priori assumption that there IS a god and that THAT |is how he/it is going to behave (a point I've been trying to make to Jeff and |to others for some time). But it's irrelevant to this particular discussion. | |Also from Rich: Article 4047 of net.singles: |>> ********* If you want LOVE, get a dog! ********** |>> Regards, |>> Ken Arndt |> |>I thought it was agreed that there would be no personal ads in net.singles? |>Why is Arndt advertising for himself here? | |And I thought it was agreed that the truth of Christianity was not |going to be questioned in net.religion.christian ? Why are you advertising |whatever it is you believe/don't believe here? [ | = SEIFERT] I took three lines to make a point (in a response to Jeff Sargent) that was tangentially but not directly related to the discussion at hand. Seifert takes an entire article of over 30 lines, including an article from a totally different newsgroup, to make a point. What that was, I'm still not sure. I'll ask Hutch, the arbiter of impoliteness, to explain what's going on here. First off, the gist of all the discussion that you may or may not have missed is 1) there was no such agreement about net.religion.christian, if you'll read Laura's article on the origins of the newsgroup and the description of the newsgroup in the newsgroup list, and 2) since it is a public forum, members of the public are free to contribute to it, while any communication desired to be in a private forum has an arena too, called a mailing list. Secondly, I'm not sure why the second article was included. Are you answering Ken's ad? :-) Sorry to take up your time. When slandered, attacked, or confused in a public forum, I'll have something to say about it. So, if all you have to offer me is such stuff, don't bother, I'll only rebut and get accused of being impolite. (Or is that what you have in mind?) -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr