From: Gragg Vaill (jerrylee@alt.net)
Date: Sun Mar 10 2002 - 12:20:09 MST
Hmmmm.... The art question and the one below got me...but I honestly
fail to see any tension in them, to me they seem very compatible in
deed. One is overly general, while the other while general is just a bit
more focused and specific. I would take issue with one of the questions
that got David, namely the one about "unnecessarily harming the
environment" I found the question entirely too vague for my liking. What
may be unnecessary to one person may not be to another and without a
definition of what is deemed unnecessary; the question is void of
meaning and open to wildly varying interpretations.
Gragg
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Davis
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:13 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: From the people who brought you the God test...
----- Original Message -----
From: "BIll Roh" <billroh@churchofvirus.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: virus: From the people who brought you the God test...
> I liked this one too, but I have the same complaint as I did in the
> other test.
>
>
> "you agreed that: There are no objective moral standards; moral
> judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular
cultures
>
> And also that: Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability
to
> do great evil"
That is the same one that got me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT