From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:52:44 GMT

Attribution levels:

>>>> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>>> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
>> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)


>>>> I still don't see anything that would justify a charge of
>>>> [Madalyn Murray O'Hair] imposing her will on anyone.

>>> You wouldn't.
>>>
>>> I don't say that to inflame anyone.  Fact is, you're as fanatical about
>>> O'Hair as fundies are about Xtianity.
>>>
>>> Come back when you've opened up your mind enough to discuss it and not make
>>> stupid jokes out of peoples comments.

>> Well, this kind of outburst is all too reminiscent of a recent thread and
>> is exactly the distinguishing feature of a closed-minded fanatic in my book.
>> 
>> Mr Livesey asks you to justify your unsupported assertion that Ms O'Hair
>> imposes her will on anybody (having made the rather reasonable argument
>> that lobbying legislatures is normal democratic process and can't be
>> termed imposition of will), and in response you accuse him of the very
>> conduct which you so signally exhibit yourself, viz:
>> 
>> Don't address the point, just dismiss it with an admirably closed-minded,
>> not to say unjustified ad hominem "You wouldn't."

> Yes, you are right.  
>
> However, when I start to discuss a topic, and all the other person does is
> pick something out of an example, twist it up, blow it all out of proportion,
> and then not address my statement....in fact, totally ignore my statement...
> then I am not likely to want to logically argue any other further statements
> made by this person. Why should I waste my time?
>
> You obviously missed the post to which I am referring.
>
> Or are you as "dense" as Jon?

Apparently, since having scanned back as requested (which I did before
writing my last post), the only candidate was his remark about whether
you find yourself *compelled* to buy can openers on a Sunday, which
was a legitimate reductio ad absurdam questioning in what way the change
to Sunday trading laws was an imposition of will.

Nevertheless, let's assume for the sake of argument that this was indeed
the offending wisecrack. How would this make Mr Livesey an O'Hair fanatic
as you accused him, and why would it disqualify him from asking you to
show where Ms O'Hair has been guilty of imposing her will?

As he said, he could see no description in your posts of behaviour
on the part of O'Hair which could justify this accusation against her,
and neither could I. The only candidate here was the petition against
religious broadcasts which she supposedly organised, that notion having
now been dispelled by a poster who has indicated that the story is pure
and well-trodden folklore.

>> Accuse Mr Livesey, without any grounds as far as I can see, of being a
>> fanatical O'Hairist, closed-minded and the author of `stupid jokes' which
>> I must somehow have missed.

> No shit!
>
> You obviously are not as "dense" as Jon or else you would not have caught
> on to the fact that you missed something. Perhaps, if there were questions
> in your mind you should have just stated so.

OK, did I get the right wisecrack?

>> Perhaps you should consider accusing Stephen Doe of having an emotional
>> attachment to Christianity (one of my recent favourites).

> Who? And why would I care?

Ah. Long story, but Mr Doe is an atheist who has recently posted an
excellent series of articles on _The Mind of the Bible Believer_ by
one Dr Cohen, and is hardly noted for the `emotional attachment to
Christianity' of which he was recently accused. My little joke;
guess you had to be there.

>> Before you tell me that I obviously sleep regularly with Ms O'Hair, [...]

> Why would I do that....you are not talking about O'Hare...you are talking
> about Jon and Me....and you sure don't sleep with me.....:)

This was a mildly sarcastic comment intended to reflect on your calling
Mr Livesey an O`Hair fanatic, apparently as a result of his asking you how
lobbying of democratic institutions can be construed as imposition of will.

>> [...] let me say that I am quite prepared to believe that she *is* a
>> fanatic, having heard various unflattering things about her from within
>> the atheist ranks.
>> 
>> But you need to offer some *evidence* that it is so, and you need to deal
>> effectively with legitimate criticism such as Mr Livesey's looks like for
>> all the world to me.

> Please refer to my post before this one where I do discuss this.
>
> At the beginning of this thread, Jon stated something along the lines that
> I should read her stuff and see her speak.....I have.....it is from this
> that I have formed an opinion of her.  This is my opinion.  I do not expect
> anyone to agree with it.
>
> I also stated to Jon that, I didn't know where he lived, but where I do she
> has gone quite far in attempting to impose her will on an area of the 
> country that has VERY DEEP religious roots....to the point moving out of the
> realm of government and into public and private sectors.  When I showed an
> example of how deeply rooted Xtianity was here, he picked up on the example
> and made some stupid crack.  

Irrespective of how deeply rooted Christianity is in any given area, you don't
seem to me to have demonstrated how Ms O'Hair is guilty of imposing her will.

> It is at this point that I ceased carrying on the discussion and told him
> to come back later when he is willing to discuss the subject.  This is
> where you piped in ... obviously not knowing the history of this discussion.

Sadly, I know its full history, and suspect that heat >> light.

> I am not going to repeat my previous post.  Backtrack and find it.
>
> Tell me Simon, in the same situation, would YOU be willing to carry on 
> the discussion?

Well, I wouldn't envisage being "in the same situation", because I find
your interpretation of the discussion so far, and of Mr Livesey's posts
in particular, rather unconventional to be honest. Still, I see no need
for a flame war and will happily let the entire matter rest.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-context quotes from s.r.c #12:

           "We should remain faithful to God because God is God."