Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:39:58 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      reply to only one Christian

I'll respond to Robert's two postings herein.

 >Jamie,

 >I'll not continue sending our entire conversation ( hold the
 >applause ). In fact, you were correct about one thing.  It
 >has become quite pointless, stupid if you prefer.

It is pointless and stupid if you decline to give any
argument, evidence, or reason for your claims.

Since you STILL refuse to do so, I agree that it's pointless.

 >It appears that we're all getting into the *rules* business.
 >You have 2 that you employ in almost every post.

> Jamie's rule #1 - If you have no valid argument, feign misunderstanding.

Let's see. Robert made the following claims.

a) If he were awakened in the middle of the night by an intruder
   in his house, he would shoot to kill.
b) He can justify this action easily.
c) "Homeowner" means "resident."
d) "Honorarium" means "honorary title."
e) If you shoot someone and don't kill him, you place yourself
   in serious danger.
f) "Shoot to wound" is equivalent to "Shoot the gun out of his
   hand, Lone Ranger style."
g) If you do not kill your intruder, you will be "victimized"
   by the court system (probably).

I suppose I believe (a), if Robert says so.
(c), (d), and (f) are all false. Robert doesn't seem to care
about the meaning of what he writes (see below), so it's
understandable that he doesn't defend those claims.

(b) would be interesting if true, but Robert does not see
fit to provide us with his "easy" justification.

(e) and (g) would be interesting if true, but Robert provides
no argument, evidence, or reason for them.

I leave it to readers to judge who has "no valid argument."


> Jamie's rule #2 - If you have lost all credibility, focus the issue on
>                   syntax and usage.

When someone gives an argument, it is important what it means.
I haven't commented on Robert's "syntax" (maybe he doesn't
know what "syntax" means).
Of course, Robert hasn't given an argument, so maybe my point
moot.

>BTW -  Choose your Webster's.  Mine says that "dialog" is
>interchangeable with "dialogue".

I didn't comment on "dialog." Me thinks Robert doth protest
too much.

>Sometimes an attempt to display your mind may
>result in showing that you only have half of one.

I once more leave the ad hominem aspects of the argument in Robert's
capable hands.

 >>Again, if I have to listen to an authority (and St. Thomas actually
 >>gave arguments!), I guess I'll continue to believe St. Thomas rather
 >>than Robert. Sorry if that bothers you.

 >It doesn't bother me a bit.  But why the switch?  I thought you only
 >listened to yourself.

By "listen to yourself" Robert probably means pay attention
arguments, reasons, and evidence rather that unsupported
claims. And indeed, I WOULD rather do that. But god is
a subject about which I am not terribly well qualified to
evaluate arguments. St. Thomas gives some, and they seem
prima facie compelling. Robert gives none, and simply asserts
that he knows about the relation between god and logic.
In my judgement, St. Thomas is a better authority.

Jamie, nonetheless heartened by the comments of some other Christians.