From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: How big _is_ Texas?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:33:15 GMT


In a previous article, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) says:

>In article <1993Jan6.181548.29505@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>
>>> When Alaska was being _CONSIDERED_ for statehood, students knew how to
>>> spell "consider".
>
>> Awwww....poor baby....he doesn't like the humor so he flames on the
>> basis of a misspelled word.
>
>I did not find the humor expressed to be exceptionally profound and
>was thus not moved by it one way or the other.  Nor am I enamored of
>Texas (or even Alaska, for that matter) to any extent.  But I do find
>the lack of self-discipline and self-respect (often exhibited, for
>example, in the lack of writing skills) of today's students to be
>exceptionally disturbing.

Excuse me?  Where did I ever make the claim I was a student?  Don't make
baseless assumptions.

>
>>> I am more inclined, rather, to consider the construction "friendly
>>> athiest" as an oxymoron.  
>>  ^^^^^^^
>
>> This idiot flames me for spelling, yet he can't spell a word right
>> when he has a model a few lines above it...
>
>> Pathetic.
>
>But at least I had the good sense to include alt.flame.spelling in the
>distribution.
>

But you still misspelled the word.  You flaming me on the basis that I have
made a misspelling when you, in that flame, demonstrate that your own
spelling skills are not superior, especially when you have the model for
that word on the same screen.  This is what I find so amusing.

You see, Kaldis, I neve made the claim that I was a good speller.  You, in 
flaming me for a misspelling, show that you believe you are.

>> I am inclined to consider the construction "Theodore Kaldis" as 
>> denoting ignorance, extreme stupidity, and extreme intolerance of
>       [take note of this; hypocrisy expressed below]^^^^^^^^^^^
>> anything the person labeled by this construction does not agree with
>> or approve of.
>
>>> But more to the point: no one that I know of is forced to walk through
>>> the door of the church.  You, as I, can choose to enter in, or else
>>> decline to, of your own free will.  Or perhaps Torquemada is still
>>> operating, undercover these days?
>
>> Did I ever imply that anyone wishing to enter or decline entering a
>> church had a lack of freewill?  No.
>
>Well, as a matter of fact, on the contrary, yes you did.  To suggest
>that the construct "freewill Christianity" is an oxymoron is to say
>that these are two mutually exclusive concepts.  This implies that
>those who frequent church lack freewill.
>

I see.  So you contend that all those who would enter a church classify
themselves as Christian?  An unwarranted assertion, at best.

>> I simply comment on the concept
>
>Is it really nothing more than a "concept"?  Just simply a thought, a
>notion, an idea?  Or is it in fact something more?  Like perhaps an
>intuition, a perception, or an observation?
>

Why does it matter?  Does my making the observation in some way bring harm to 
you?

>> that those who most strongly embrace Christianity tend to loose touch
>                [An exercise: is this really correct usage?]^^^^^

No more so than "athiest" in your above quote was.

>> with their free will, at least those of my aquaintence.
>
>But you miss the larger question here?: is this a manifestation of the
>fundamental nature of Christianity, or is it a corruption of it by at
>least some of its adherents?

The general concept of Christianity is "Believe or go to hell".  There are
very few martyrs.  If that is the choice, where is the free will?


>
>>> BTW, you have trailing blanks after the last asterisks in the lines of
>>> your .signature file.
>
>> So what?  Is it your contention that leaving trailing blanks somehow
>> denotes some manner of deviance?  [...]
>
>No, it is my contention that it denotes some manner of carelessness.

If I had wanted my .sig to use all available space, I would have designed it 
so.  It is exactly as I want it, therefor, no carelessness is evident.

>
>>> -- 
>>> The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>>> my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>>> believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.[...]
>>> this would hold such views???       ||
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Not only do I not believe it, I am amazed that an institute as well
>> thought of as Rutgers would ever allow someone like you to be
>> associated with it.
>
>(Here is the hypocrisy.)  Rutgers, unlike you, is tolerant of
>diversity of opinion, and is fully cognizant that such an attitude is
>absolutely necessary -- even indispensible -- if free inquiry is to
>flourish.  (Not that I'm acting as a spokesman on behalf of Rutgers,
>mind you.  But this has been my observation.)

Oh, I'm very tolerant of diversity of opinion.  I simply am intolerant
of people who, like you, insist that diversity of opinion does not
include the right to decent in a free society. 

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan