Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Loose nuts and well-tighened screws Message-ID: <361@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 16:01:11 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.361 Posted: Tue Jan 8 16:01:11 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 06:21:41 EST References: <110@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 66 Xref: watmath net.religion:5240 net.flame:7522 [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