Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (18154)	7/14/2001 7:16:55 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

First of all it was a post about me to someone else, that unfairly represented my position and then held me up to ridicule. Regarding unfairly representing your position, my understanding of your position is that your belief hinges on the resurrection, which you claim can be proven by the historical record of the Bible. Greg, I've been paying pretty close attention to what you say, at least when you're not arguing scripture. I don't think I have that wrong but I hope you'll correct me if I do. Regarding talking about you rather than to you, yeah, I did that. Perhaps I shouldn't have. I asked you directly a couple of times and you didn't address it so, when the conversation shifted into my area of curiosity, I joined in and looked to others to see if they had an answer to my question. Does my interest in understanding where you're coming from justify searching for an answer from others on the thread? I don't see anything so horrible in that although I do recognize the sensitivity of posters to being talked about instead of talked to. I think it's OK, obviously, or I wouldn't have done it, but I acknowledge it's a gray area. Having the discussion with other posters in PMs IMO would not have been acceptable, but I conducted the discussion in public where you could see what I was saying and could have joined in. Regarding holding you up to ridicule, I can understand your point. While I did not, myself, say anything to ridicule you, I did participate in a conversation where the thread was funnin' with you. So, if you felt ridiculed, I accept some of the responsibility. you didn't answer my last post to you regarding working back from current existence to a logical conclusion. I don't recall any message from you still pending. I've just tried to search for it without success. If you still want to pursue that line of discussion, please either refer me to the pending post or ask your question again. Sorry if I dropped the ball. Perhaps you could point out some of my more blatant logical and scientific fallacies, and I might learn something, Greg, I've stayed out of that part of the discussion. There are plenty of posters engaging you on that. I have never even read the Bible, let alone being qualified to debate it with you so I don't try. Whether or not your arguments have logical or scientific fallacies is not of much importance to me. My curiosity centers around why you perceive a need to demonstrate a logical or scientific or historical proof for something that can be justified, with much, much less effort, by just ascribing it to faith. Karen