Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: Loose nuts and well-tighened screws
Message-ID: <657@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 14:08:17 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.657
Posted: Fri Jan 11 14:08:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 07:07:08 EST
References: <110@decwrl.UUCP> <361@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.religion:5265 net.flame:7620

> 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			    |