Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Laura on appropriateness of newsgroups
Message-ID: <383@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 10:40:17 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.383
Posted: Tue Feb 26 10:40:17 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 11:05:28 EST
References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 70
Summary: 

I'm taking the liberty of responding to some points addressed to Rich Rosen,
because I've experienced these same arguments at one time or another.

In article <5093@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
> Reply to Rich: ...
> But there is a further problem here. This business of face-slamming
> has been going on for years here. You are obviously not getting
> your message across. Now the question to ask is: What is wrong
> with your messages that so many people can't understand them? ...
> My theory is that they are not listening because they perceive
> you as not listening -- and hostile to boot...

Quite possibly true-- of some individuals.  But there are a lot of people
who do get his message.  Some people feel you aren't listening unless you
agree with every word they say.  If they aren't receptive, there are enough
others who are that I wouldn't cry.

> At some point you may have to consider that they are not interested in
> logic at all -- and if you conclude that this is the case then what
> are you going to do? Logical arguements are not going to work with them
> no matter how you phrase them!

I argue both for the individual I am addressing and the audience.
If an individual is not interested in logic, he/she will have to labor to
convince those in the audience who are amenable to logic.  I think logic
and rationality have a pretty fair following, even in net.religion.christian.

> You may be understnading them better, but I don't tghink that they are
> understanding you. From the mail I have received, it seems that
> a fair chunk of the readership think that you are playing a con-game --
> you claim to want understanding but don't make any effort to understand.
> This claim may be false -- but you seem to have lost some of teh audience.

I've been accused of this also.  I feel the claim is false.  If someone
explains their beliefs to me, and I spot a "leap of faith", I will not
adopt their beliefs.  I can still understand their beliefs, and
extrapolate upon them.  But some people will misinterpret rejection as
lack of understanding.  I'm always happy to explain why, if they'd only
ask (some do) and not judge hastily.

> That you may be justified in venting your spleen doesn't mean that you
> *should*. Why contribute to the general level of vidictiveness?
> is it doing you any good?

It took me years (in notes on the PLATO system) to cut down on my sarcasm
and adopt a policy of turn the other cheek while rebutting accurately.
I think there is an esthetic involved, that supplants the satisfaction
one can receive from goading someone else into apoplexy.  Sometimes I
slip: I can only ask tolerance.

> But many people get sucked into the same unworthwhile debates again,
> and again, and again. This is folly.
> 
> Most of the Christians can claim ``well, I wasn't around 2 years
> ago -- so this is news to me''. But there are others, like
> Ken Ardnt and Kar:en alias larryg who seem fantastically interested
> in such folly. And you, Rich, either also enjoy this or get sucked in
> far too often. So, why not move these arguements to another newsgroup?
> net.religion.perpetual perhaps? (gee, I'm having fun thinking of names).

Schoolteachers seem to have the same personal "problem" of not being
satisfied with their own personal knowledge.  I don't think that
willingness to educate is folly.  And splitting newsgroups doesn't
entirely solve the problem either, because the education process must
continue to keep newcomers writing in the correct groups.  And it is
amusing to consider that you are getting sucked into one of those
"foolish" perpetual arguments yourself right here.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh