From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:51:36 MST

In article <1992Aug21.163056.19112@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>
>> Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
> 
> Why? Is it not "content-free" in the context of a.a., even by precisely
> the standards you mention yourself elsewhere in this article and thread?

Which do you mean, your response, my response, or the original survey?
The "it" in your question is somewhat vague.  If you mean the original
survey, I agree, it was "content-free" and I said so.  If you mean 
your response or mine, I think both had some content.

> 
>> [my *entire* post again, sadly deleted this time around]
>>
[ OK, I deleted my stuff this time (in regard to your comment below).]

> OK, I'll agree that if I had just posted 1000 lines of "f*** off", that
> would have been an utter waste of bandwidth. I felt that I managed to
> squeeze in a few pertinent points, albeit in a trojan horse of chest-
> beating, flag-flying, yahoo sarcasm as you so generously point out.

I agree, you did.  However, the posters will never see it, most likely.

> 
> Viz:
> 
> Don't you think that the undefended assumptions of the very existence
> of God and Heaven by ranting fundies are open to challenge by ridiculous
> analogy (hence my remarks about drooling faith in my certainty of going
> to *my* heaven despite the fact that I have no evidence whatever for
> this belief)?

From *your* point of view, yes, I think they are open to challenge by
ridiculous analogy and sarcasm.  I can see how you'd think such a retort
was reasonable.  And I don't criticize you for what you said, but the
fact you said it.  It's best to ignore such posts completely.

And I just happened to pick your response to comment on.  Luck of the
draw, and all that.  It could have been someone else, but yours was so
cute that I felt it bore repeating by reproducing the whole thing.  :)


> 
> Which (even `Christian') God/Heaven was intended by the poster is far
> from clear given the number of competing Christian doctrines, hence
> my comments about the 144,000.

True.

> 
> If arrivals at the Pearly Gates were asked by God why they consider
> themselves suitably moral material for admission to Heaven, well,
> don't you think the average God-massacred Midianite innocent might
> find that a little cheeky? Is this not a valid point?

Yes, and if you want to discuss it sometime, I'm willing to do so.

> 
> Does not the `newsgroups' line in the original give the lie (it says
> something about lying in the bible as I recall) to the suggestion that
> the poster has no agenda other than being "just curious", especially if,
> as you point out, the poster cannot even collate replies to the `survey'
> without another account on Usenet?

Admittedly.  I was not defending the "survey"; I was trying to encourage
people to ignore such posts altogether.  That means no responses.


> 
> I feel that such points are often better made, easier to digest and
> more entertaining if expressed in facetious sarcasm than in the dry
> terminology of intellectual discourse, although that certainly has
> its place.

No argument here.  I even said your sarcasm was funny in a ribald sort
of way.

> 
> Irrespective of the poster's apparent inability to read followups,
> I still feel that it is appropriate to post them because some poor
> soul might just have been thinking "Wow, hey, that's a point, what
> if I *do* die tomorrow? Gee, I might not go to Heaven...." and
> maybe, just maybe, somebody's followup might make them think again
> before surrendering their brains to such a pernicious meme-set. 

I agree with your point here, although you would do well to remember
that it's a "pernicious meme-set" only from the basis of your worldview.
Actually I agree with the post, I just think it was inappropriate to
this newsgroup since it was unsolicited.

However, when an atheist *asks* a reasonable question, I think they
deserve a reasonable answer.  Such solicited "content-free" :) posts
are appropriate.


> If
> this happens just once, then all that bandwidth was worth it as far
> as I'm concerned, and I'd say the same if I had to pay by the Kbyte
> for the privilege of posting.

Well, OK I suppose.  But consider that the original posters may have
simply been trying to get a rise out of everyone.  Judging by the
numerous responses, they were successful.

> 
>> (To everyone)  Why do you waste bandwidth responding to this type of
>> post?
> 
> Why did you waste bandwidth reproducing my entire post in your followup?

I apologize.  It was an oversight.
> 
> Note the special low-bandwidth .sig, just for you Jim.
> 
Thanks loads.

>>Jim B.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> crap .sig huh?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks OK to me.  :)

Jim