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: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:25:05 GMT




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

>In article <1993Jan7.203315.25224@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>>>> 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 don't suppose that you have ever made such a claim.  Nonetheless, I
>must say that I find it quite incredible that a member of the faculty
>(or even of the professional staff) of an .edu site would spell or
>write so atrociously.  Thus, I surmise that it would be much more
>reasonable to assume that you are a member of the cleaning staff.
>

Wrong again, Kaldis.

One would think that after making one baseless assumption you would be careful
about making another quite so quickly.  Just like that little aeomeba 
who insists on running into the electrode in the lab experiment, huh?

Try this:

Community Access Computer Network.

The only connection I have with the university that administrates that
network is that I go to their football games.

Strike two.


>>>> This idiot flames me for spelling, yet he can't spell a word right
>>>> when he has a model a few lines above it...
>
>>> 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.
>
>So how much mileage do you hope to get out of one error -- which in
>reality happens to be a _TYPING_ error rather than a spelling error?
>

Indeed?  Funny.

On my keyboard, it seems it would be rather difficult to mix up an i and
an e, seeing that they are on opposite sides.


>> You see, Kaldis, I neve made the claim that I was a good speller.
>                     ^^^^
>
>Yes, I see.
>
>> You, in flaming me for a misspelling, show that you believe you are.
>
>You have mentioned that you have read a number of my posts.  Just how
>many spelling errors have you ever seen in them?  (But then this is a
>silly question.  After all, how would you know?)
>

Don't be obtuse, Kaldis.  The point is that I have seen at least one.
Why don't you admit the fact that you made a spelling error?  Are you
afraid that if you admit a mistake that it will somehow lessen the
usenet user's respect for you?  Not to worry, that which does not exist
cannot be lessened.


>>>> 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.
>
>Suddenly, when the criticism has shifted from me to you, you seem to
>be far less observant of the exact details of the passage in question.
>I did not say "enter church", I said "_FREQUENT_ church".  Those who
>frequent church are not generally thought of as non-Christians.
>

FREQUENT,  vt, to visit (a place) often. (Webster's School and Office 
dictionary, (c)1991, William Collins and World Publishing, Inc.)

There are many who enter church who are not christian.  As an example,
I present Muslems, Jews, Buddists, Shinto.  Surely you don't maintain
that these groups ARE generally thought of as christian...

More to the point, quite a number of those who attend churches which are
classified as "Christian" do so for traditional reasons, and in fact are
not christian.

But let us not play semantic games.

I do, in fact, maintain that those who most feverently embrase the christian
faith are sadly lacking in freewill.


>Moreover, I originally took exception to the construction "friendly
>atheist".  Your demeanor, both here and in email, can hardly be
>characterized as "friendly".
>

Indeed.  Any more than the construction "God Is Love" indicates that
the person who uses it necessarily follows it.



>>>> 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?
>
>It matters in that you are quite imprecise in the way you express
>yourself, and you seem to be quite willing to excuse what appears to
>me to be a lackadaisical attitude in your personal habits.
>

Again, my inability to spell well is apparent, and I have, many times,
admited that fact.  However, that is where it stops.  I make no excuses
for it, however, I also take no shame in it.  

It also has no berring on my ability to express myself in a mannor which
leaves no doubt about what it is I am trying to say.


>>>> 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.
>
>Don't skirt the issue.  Just how much mileage do you hope to get out
>of a typing error?
>

As much as you hope to get out of continuing to flame on a point which is
either moot, or has been admitted.


>>>> 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".
>
>Is it your contention that the entirety of Christianity can be
>expressed in the above characterization?
>

That is the reason all my Christian friends give me for reminding me
relentlessly that I must accept Jesus under penalty of eternal 
punishment.

See your next quote following.  It makes the point better then I ever
could.



>> There are very few martyrs.  If that is the choice, where is the free
>> will?
>
>The choice is yours.  If you wind up in Hell, it will not be because
>you were never given the opportunity to avoid it.
>

If I wind up in Hell, it will be because I did not believe a dogma which
has so many inconsistancies and so much illogic that it is impossible to
believe in without taking an even more illogical leap of faith.

Please, Kaldis, don't clothe me with your own mythology.  It doesn't fit,
and if it did, it would be the wrong style.


>>>> 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.
>
>Say it again -- maybe this time you might convince someone of it.
>Your .sig is the way it is because of your carelessness, and you do
>not bother to correct it because you are lazy.
>

Have you noticed my line-lengths, Kaldis?  Note how well they, for the
most part, fit my .sig?  Real carelessness and sloth there, huh?
 
I need convince no one of anything.  I like my .sig the way it is.
Your opinions on it are unimportant.


>>> (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.
>                       ^^^^^^
>
>Learn to write, you moron!  You mean "dissent", not "decent".  We can
>maybe overlook leaving off the last letter of a word, or even
>transposing a couple of letters, but this is intolerable.
>

Intolerable?  Hmmm...

Who is we, exactly, and more importantly, what gives you the right to
determine what is or is not intolerable?

Oh, I forgot.  You're christian, it's endemic to the creed...


>Now, as you can see, it is _STUPIDITY_ that I am intolerant of.  

Indeed?  How do you bear living with yourself?


>But
>where, I challenge you, have I _EVER_ said what you above claim that I
>have: that diversity of opinion does not include dissent?  This is
>something you have concocted out of thin air, presumably because you
>have run out of substance to criticize me about.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pot, meet kettle.

Kettle, this is pot. 


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