From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Hitler and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:27:10 GMT

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
: 
: Bill, do you ever really say anything? I can't for the life of me remember
: you ever ADDING anything to a discussion, just pick pick picking away at
: a post, always very logical and even tempered, but seldom providing any 
: positive feedback. You seem to commonly ignore the main points, or the 
: attempts at humor, and instead rattle somebody's cage or pedantically impose
: your supposedly global definitions, criticizing other's ideas in the process.

I certainly add new stuff to discussions. Maybe it is just my own beliefs,
and why I feel they are more valid than those expressed by the person to
whom I am responding. I have always posted with the general community in
mind, rather than the individual.  As such, you may feel that my definitions
appear to be global - they are, compared to many that I have seen.

As far as not providing positive feedback - I have often encouraged people
to keep posting, when they become upset over responses to their efforts. I
have also always been a champion for people being able to express their own
beliefs. I may argue with them and state optional views, but I don't believe
that I have ever told people that their beliefs were wrong - for them. I have
occasionally told people that their beliefs are not necessarily true for the
community, as a whole.

I try not to ignore main points - if I do so, it is because I agree with
them. As such, my silence is tacit agreement. Now, I could just make postings
where I only respond to portions that I agree with, ignoring the parts with
which I disagree. However, I do not feel that this is productive, in any
manner. There are already plenty of back-patters in the world. I expect people
to criticize my postings - that is the only way I can learn if my ideas seem
to be valid or not. I learn nothing from people just agreeing with me. The
criticism also causes me to think more deeply about my own beliefs.

: Why the obsession with definitions? You yourself claim the validity of each
: person's definition, criticize others' definitions you disagree with, and at 
: the same time promote your own ideas as if they were agreed upon globally.
: And then you seem surprised that anyone might find your ideas unacceptable.

Sorry if you feel that way. I certainly do not mean to give that impression.
My objection with many definitions is that they are too narrow. This is fine,
for the person - but frequently not good when attempting to apply these labels
to the group as a whole.

It would be nice if everyone accepted my ideas and definitions as valid - then
there would be no more bickering over such things.  However, I neither expect
this to ever occur, nor do I feel it would be desireable. About the time that
everyone agrees about such things is when stagnation sets in. Right now, the
pagan movement is alive, active and vital. I would like it to remain that way.

: I think few people would attempt to define either P/paganism, P/pagan religion,
: or the scope of this group so narrowly as to exclude earth-worshipping pagans,
: atheist pagans, or probably anyone who WANTED to be called a pagan. This is

Ah, but there are those that would. Some of them have posted here at one time
or another.

: an INCLUSIVE grouping, not an EXCLUSIVE one. And yes, whether you like it or
: not, both common usage inside and outside the pagan community refers to 
: paganism as a religious grouping. IMO, how anyone defines "religion" is up to
: them, and many a case has been made that the atheistic worldview is also
: a religious worldview. It really doesn't matter that much.

I have no objection to common usage. I am also sure that such definitions
depend on with whom you associate and which part of the world you reside.

I agree with you that any definition is person, and valid for that person.
I have stated that many times in the past. My main objection, in my postings,
has been when someone appears to be attempting to define my labels for me.

: And why do you care? This thread got rightfully dropped a long time ago,
: the repercussions of it still in the care many of us now take when using
: upper and lower case letters for P/pagan. And what's the point? Does it
: take us ANYWHERE? Does it promote understanding and communication? In a 
: different thread a discussion of the ever-mounting threat of the religous
: and political right goes on. When looking at the bigger picture, of people 
: physically and emotionally assaulted because of their beliefs, of losing
: their jobs and friends, doesn't it make this discussion seem petty?

If someone responds to my posting - I usually show the courtesy to respond.
I do not believe I brought the subject up anew. If so, it was unintentional.
I believe such discussions do promote understanding and communication, if
only by making people realize that some labels they took for granted are not
necessarily agreed to by everyone.

I realize such discussion may be relatively trivial, compared to some other
threads, but misunderstanding is also behind all these other problems.

: >You should see some of the mail I get when I defend the Satanists
: >or the Christians. :-)  The best thing to do with such hate mail
: >is just delete it. If there is reasonable arguement, then pay
: >attention - you might learn something. Otherwise, it is not worth
: >even the effort of reading through.
: 
: Why bother? You'll get less hate mail. If you like hate mail, then you
: deserve it. I really don't see the point. Are you the "Zorro" of Internet?

I defend their right, just as I would your right, to believe what they want.
I will also defend their right to express their beliefs, whether or not I
may agree with them.

No, I do not like hate mail. Fortunately, it is usually obvious from the
first sentence or two - trivial to delete.

I do not recall what the above statement was in response to - since you
quoted me out of context, I cannot state what the point of the response
was meant to be. 

I am not sure what you mean by "Zorro" of Internet. You will have to 
explain what you mean.

: >More than likely. It takes a bit to separate the two. I treat e-mail
: >and the net as separate entities. I pretend that all unsolicited e-mail
: >is the same as junk mail. I scan it and, if it appears to be interesting,
: >then I read it - otherwise it goes in the bit bucket.
: >
: >No need to apologize - you have every right to state your own opinions.
: >Don't let some people who disagree stop you.
: >
: >Bill
: 
: I'd probably have e-mailed you rather than posting this publicly, but from
: the above I doubt it'd get read. I have no desire to get into a long and 
: protracted argument over your methods. From your posts I gather what I 
: have to say will be ignored anyway, but as you say, I have every right to 
: state my own opinions regardless of whether anyone gives me "permission" to
: do so. But that's not why I express myself.

You are wrong. It is interesting. For one thing, it shows that I have given
some people a perception of myself that I had not intended. As such, I thank
you for the response.  I would have responded, if you had sent e-mail. It is
just the abusive responses that I throw out as lacking interest - since I am
not into self-abuse.

If I have ignored any of the points you have made, please point them out to
me. I will gladly respond. To date, no one has accused me of being cryptic or
close-mouthed. :-)

Bill