 |
 |
Charlie, Talk about double-talk. English please! Better check your dictionary for the correct definition of debate and argument and stop relying on your own interpretation. Greg ************************************************************************** From: Charles T. Meyer, M.D. <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 12:42 PM Subject: Re: RELIGION and the list >Bob, > >The problem with your statement is what is debate and what is argument. I >think that everything except attacks directed at an individual should be >fair game. The problem even with this is what crosses the line. Heated >debate can easily push these limits and get people angry. It is just a >small jump from saying your logic is faulty from saying you are illogical. >As long as a person is not being harassed off LIST with unwanted email and >they are following the rules of the list as far as using headings to >minimize offense that might be taken by someone who chooses not to >participate I agree that the discussions (or arguments should be allowed on >the list.) > >And Janet your observation is quite revealing- that this legend still stirs >feeling today. I think that- as I said before- that adults should have >unrestricted debate and contact with all views. If we don't accept that >then we become anti-democratic. It should be each of our choices about what >we read and discuss. The statement proposes to limit that availability >even with almost unlimited access to the airwaves at this point in time. >(Balance was an issue when there were only a few stations available in each >market). > >Let us try to be inclusive rather than exclusive on our list, respect >everyone's views and their right to hold them. But, if some PWP's are so >upset by this that they can't handle it they have the right to opt out. If >volume is your problem then use the filters Janet has provided for us or >those on your own mail program. If you don't know how to use them then ask >someone. > > >Charlie > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bob Anibal <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 9:40 AM >Subject: Re: RELIGION and the list > > >> There are , I feel, large differences between discussions, debates and >> arguments. The first is or can be educational and everybody wins the >others >> often get heated and no-win >> Bob A >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: janet paterson <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 10:37 PM >> Subject: Re: RELIGION and the list >> >> >> > hi all >> > >> > At 21:46 1999/11/14 -0500, greg wrote, in part: >> > >... but cannot see the relevance of religion and its impact >> > >onpersonal innerpeace... >> > > PD other than to give some sort of > > i personally found the diagnosis of >pd and my acceptance of same >> > a real "wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee call" >> > i started looking at my priorities pretty hard then >> > and am still making adjustments >> > >> > i think that a diagnosis of any condition >> > which is chronic and incurable and degenerative >> > would affect most people in similar ways; >> > it's a profound and intimate and solitary >> > not to mention frightening event/trauma/realization >> > to have to come to grips with; >> > any or all of which qualities would probably >> > send most people scurrying to their 'creed' for comfort >> > >> > >I try to avoid discussions on religion and politics because they >> > >are both no-win situations. As proof I only need to refer to the >> > >much heated debate on the subject... >> > >> > what is it about a heated debate >> > that make you feel it's a no-win situation? >> > >> > someone here once described a "vigourous discussion" >> > as something like "aerobics for the mind" >> > >> > >I only started to question the religion posts to prove a point to >> > >myself about the raw nerve religious debate touches in people... >> > >> > not in everyone, surely? and not every debate? >> > >> > >I also did it to try and provoke some emotion out of >> > >what I felt were some fairly bland discussions.... >> > >> > hey >> > wait a minute >> > have you not just contradicted yourself, >> > or gone full circle,or fulfilled your own prophecies >> > or am i missing something here? >> > >> > 1. religious discussions are no-win; the proof being >> > 2. the heated debate which developed on the list >> > 3. religious debates touch raw nerves in people >> > 4. the religious discussions on the list were so bland >> > 5. that you actively provoked emotions >> > >> > >> > janet >> > >> > whose religious birth-right comprised >> > a protestant mother >> > assisted by a catholic doctor >> > in a jewish hospital >> > >