From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:30:56 GMT

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?

> [my *entire* post again, sadly deleted this time around]
>
> Simon, cut the crap, OK?  As someone else pointed out, this post was
> gated through Compuserve and the original posters will probably never
> see your caustic wit.
>
> So why did you respond to this stuff?  Was it to beat your chest and
> provide a good show for the approval of your atheist peers?  How
> clever of you!  Seize your chance to take the oath, fly the flag, and
> salute smartly -- what a *good* atheist you are!  ;)

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.

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)?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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. 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.

> (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?

Note the special low-bandwidth .sig, just for you Jim.

>Jim B.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
crap .sig huh?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------