 |
 |
Sorry for the attachment on the previous copy of this post. Ignore it Charlie Greg, I'm sorry my English was not to your liking and if I wasn't clear I am sorry- if double talk referred to my syntax rather than my argument. ( My syntax does tend to get tangled at times and did in that letter). I was responding to Bob Anibal not to you. My thesaurus gives as synonyms of debate- "argument" and "disagreement" There is a slight difference between the two- a shade of meaning. My point about religion as having a place on the list has to do with the central role it plays in many people's lives. As I believe Murph asked- ":You wouldn't put a ban on talking about Sinemet would you?" His faith is that central to him. While don't share his views on religion, his faith in his mind is inseparable from his PD. I am against censoring any view. I will argue with him when he and I disagree- which is often- but I will defend his RIGHT to discuss it here. If the subject is too controversial and will cause too much of a conflict I would be willing to take it off list VOLUNTARILY but IMHO it belongs here. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Sterling <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 12:08 PM Subject: NON-PD: English please > 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 > >> > > > Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton(Madison) WI [log in to unmask]