From: Bodie (mclarkc@essex.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 04:45:34 MST
Just a couple of points here:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, L' Ermit wrote:
>
> Secondly, name calling - in return for continuous insults - is not only
> fair, it is correct. There are no moderators here, and as I refuse to allow
> myself to be driven from the list as readily as Casey appears to be, anytime
> that an asshole with an agenda becomes unpleasant, this involves fighting
> fire with fire. I just try to make sure that I have the better flamethrower.
Surely in this case, for the good of the list, it would be better to fight
fire with water, i.e, filter the offending person from your email forever.
This is the correct way to deal with that situation, as was proved with a
certain other person who we agreed never to speek the name of again. If
we start by getting down to their level and exchange insults then they
just throw more insults back at us and the whole thing carries on
escalating until it threatens to overtake the whole group. This has been
proved in recent weeks with the ammount of messages on this group that
have been purely there to slag of another person. The best and possibly
only way to do it is to ignore them.
> Thirdly, Casey's assertion that I "go off the handle" at the "slightest
> inclinations of religious thought" is in fact, like all of Casey's
> assertions incorrect. It is my experience that once "religious thought" is
> endorsed by a self-identified rational atheist forum, the quality
> deteriorates rapidly. As the CoV can be a nice sandbox, when not cluttered
> with lamers, I attempt to discourage religious exercises, but asserting that
> I "go off the handle" for any reason is not sustainable. If Casey wants a
> forum in which to pursue such matters, may I suggest
> alt.chat.brainless.religious.chinless-wonders. I'm sure he would feel
> comfortable there.
While I agree that religion is generally brain dead, there are some parts
that are worth exploring, not for the spiritual implications, but for
historical purposes. I would never condem anyone on this list for reading
the babble, but I would if they believed it. While 90% of religios texts
are complete bollox, there is occasionally a point of historical truth,
although it may be seen in a different light. Wether we like it or not,
there is a great deal to be learnt through religion that doesn't involve
any sort of faith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT