From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 21:56:47 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>> You have asked a legitimate question, and now you chastise people for
>> answering.  If you don't want to know the answer, then don't ask the
>> question.

>Do you consider flunking a test chastisement? Then the person who takes
>the test doesn't have any responsibility for his answers? What should
>I do, just give everyone 100% to humor them? Nobody forced anyone to take
>this test. And the questions were not "IS there a soul?" or "IS there a
>purpose of human life?" but "What IS the soul?" and "What IS the purpose
>of human life?"

Again, your questions then are meaningless.  You are asking people to
describe something that does not exist.  For example, if I were to ask you
to write out all the integers between 0 and 1, you wouldn't be able to
write anything because there aren't any.

You are saying: "assuming there is a soul and that there is a purpose of
human life, what would these things be?"  Now, I could answer your 
hypothetical, but my answer would be pretty meaningless.  I could tell you
what people that believe in these things think.  I could quote your little
storybook that "gives" the answers, but then, would I have accomplished
anything?  I don't think so.

>What IS the problem, really?

You are asking bad questions.

>> That is, if you know the answer, then why ask?  You are assuming that your
>> view is the only corect one (as everyone feels about his own views I 
>> suppose), so why don't you tell US the answer instead of playing these
>> little games.

>In most of my responses to the tests, I did in fact include the answers.
>It was tailored to each individual response. I didn't include any
>answers in the one you cite because by his responses the person
>indicated that he did not even accept the existence of the topics in
>question! That is why I said "pupil in wrong class".

But these are legitimate answers to your questions.  I think the teacher
flunked in this case.

>> Earlier you had posted a message saying how upset you were that no one
>> was taking you seriously.  Judging from your response to this answer, I
>> think I know why.  In fact, it seems to me that you are operating
>> on a false premise all around.  People don't post here just for your
>> amusment.  If you are just mocking us, then feel free to go elsewhere.

>Well, apparently you think that we posted the test for your amusement.

No, I think you posted for YOUR amusement at OUR expense.

>If not, why such an uproar? The message i'm getting is that you're "not
>amused", as if you think you should have been. I am not mocking the
>people who took the test. I made some humorous remarks in some cases,
>but this is not intended as insulting mockery.

Well, you should be more tactful in your responses, especially if you are
speaking to a hostile audience (which probably is the case since your
religion is most likely a tiny minority).

>It's really quite amazing how many times I hear "don't post here" or
>"please go away", not only in response to my own posts, but from anyone
>who is the least disturbed by what others are saying. I have never
>tried to get those who disagree with me to stop speaking or to stop
>posting here. What is this nonsense? Why not fight, if you know you're
>right?

You shouldn't go away, you should just learn etiquette.

keith

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex