From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Communication Problems, Gregory XVI and (oh, no, not again) Railways
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:53:57 GMT

In article <6432@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.221958.27646@news.nd.edu> jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>>He banned railways!  My God, how absurd.  He banned railways
>>for God's sake.  YOu ignorant peasants, you hang on every word of the pope,
>>surrending your intellect and will to a foreign power; but for God's sake
>>he banned railways.  Don't you see how ignorant you are?  Join me  in my
>>enlightened stance
>
>My goodness. So much venom from such a small vessel. This is the way I
>like it: none of this wimpish sticking to the arguments or respecting your
>interlocutor; let's just put some words in his mouth and abuse him.

Et tu, Martin?

>
>> I suppose if he forgets
>>words, you'll always find some to put in his mouth.
>
>Words fail me, but I expect you'll be kind enough to provide some.

John says "                                                       ." ;-)

>>I guess you have your authorities to whom you submit your judgement then?
>
>No, don't be stupid. I don't "submit" to Butler, I agree with him. It's
>called "thinking", John.

"Stupid?"  Now there's wimpish sticking to argument, and respecting your 
interlocutor if I've ever read it!

1)  Upon what basis of knowledge do you agree with Butler as opposed to
submit?  Seemed to me that your quote from him was in the form of conclusions
he had made upon relfection on the situation.  Have you made the same reflectionand therefore find your conclusions in line with his, but independent of him?
Or have you learned from him?  If the former, then why cite him rather than 
just providing your own conclusions based upon your own reflection?  Is it
because you want to add the weight of his *authority* as a bishop and
published author to your own reflections and conclusions?

2)  You seem to think there is a hard and fast distinction between "agreement"
on the one hand, and "to submit" on the other hand.  Agreement you characterize
as "thinking", while implicitly suggesting that "to submit" to someone else
is neither "agreement" nor "thinking".  But I ask you, If you wish to hold this
strong distinction between these three terms, 'agree' 'submit' and 'think',
in all your learning about the subjects of Church history, on the supposition
that you have not personally witnessed all the events you recount, did you find
that you were 'agreeing' and therefore 'thinking', or did you feel that you 
were submiting to the authors of the histories you were reading, and therefore
not thinking?  Now don't be "stupid" in your response.

>
>>>David Lodge: "How Far Can You Go?", Penguin Books, 1980. pp114-5.
>>
>>The title of this book says it all.  Reminds me of my childish questions to
>>my father, "Dad how much sin can I do and still get into heaven?"
>
>Yes, you're right, it's always best to examine the contents of a book just
>by reading the title. What do you do with all the spare time?

I'm not sure how you drew the conclusion that I was examining the contents
of the book you mention.  On the face of it my statement indicates a
reminiscence of mine, upon reading the title.  Could you detail how you
drew the conclusion I was examining the contents of the book?

I read, I clean, etc..  What do you do?

Peace,
John O'Callaghan


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU