Interesting dynamic you have going on there Peter J. Alling. Hurl
abuse and then delete responses from the person you have insulted. How
old are you exactly?
Antonio
On 14 Jul 2004, at 22:57, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Bob, Bob, just kill file him and get it over with.
I have and life is sweet.
You're not going to change his mind, (I almost added if he has one,
but that would just be fueling the fire so to speak).
Oh that's right I did. Let me apologize in advance.
Bob Blakely wrote:
Yea, Antonio, I'm a Nazi. Go revel at the wondrous name you've tacked
onto
me. All the others on the list will be proud of you, send you many
accolades, etc. Naw, they'll just be silent.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bob,
The Protestant Church and the Third Reich
http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/church/
keithpage/protesta.htm
Antonio
On 14 Jul 2004, at 20:23, Bob Blakely wrote:
This post appears intolerant, prejudiced and bigoted.
Every group of prople believe their "standards" are correct, and
every
group
has some (group or self) proclaimed representatives who attempt to
impose
their standards on others, or "[by] seeking to persuade". Democrats,
Republicans, Torys, Labor, Greenpeace, Socialists, Anarchists,
Comunists,
Parent Teacher Associations, Home Owner Associations. Some do this
by
advocacy, some by force of law, some by advocating law. Being that
you
are
part of the human condition with us all, this includes your
groug(s) as
well. It's just that more groups are "more noble" than the ones you
dislike.
You use terms like "often by very crude methods" thereby claiming
the
methods are "very crude" - a judgement from your own set of
"standards" and
most likely those of those groups and peoples with which you choose
to
associate because they espouse your stanards to form your own self
reinforcing circle. You further characterize the frequency of these
occurances which you do not wish to tolerate as "often." Really! Out
of all
the encounters you have with Christians (or other groups you hold in
lesser
regard) exactly how often are they seeking to "impose their
standards
on
[you], or "seeking to persuade [you]"? What's the measure here?
"Christianity is advertised like soap powder in America"? Really!
Exactly
which shelf is it on?
As for "trying to impose their standards on others, or 'seeking to
persuade'", isn't that exactly what you're attempting to do here?
No?
Just
expressing your views? Can Christians do the same? If so, exactly
how
can
they do this without violating your "standards" that define
"imposing"?
Here you are "seeking to persuade" Collin, and by virtue of your
public
post, all on the list that Christians trying to impose their
standards
on
others. Perhaps, but your post is an example of the same thing.
Thanks for this post. It's good to know where people stand, what
they
think
of others. You might say that I am tolerant of tour intolerant post.
Regards,
Bob...
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: apologetic
Perhaps, Colin, if Christians weren't trying to impose their
standards on
others, or "seeking to persuade", often by very crude methods
(Christianity is advertised like soap powder in America), people
would be
less likely to "make light" of some of their more bizarre hang-ups.
And as for not demeaning people like Moslems, a few months ago you
posted
a signature which was so pregnant with zenophobia that it took my
breath
away. And that of many others.
You reap what you sow.
John
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:36:25 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the most part discussion has been good. Most of the
dissenting
and
various opinions have been civil and that is good. I also
consider
this
to be "on topic" because we're discussing what we do with our
cameras
and why, what defines "art" and its appropriateness in various
situations, and what is suitable and civil on PDML.
The issue of offense and motivation was an important. A couple of
individuals seemd to think it humorous to offend with intent and
with an
antogistic tone. But most were more civil, voicing a variety of
divergent opinions, and without hostility.
Art, as can words, be used to discuss issues. That discussion
can be
used to communicate history with a point, as one would see in the
drawings from the Spanish Revolution. Sometimes its
philosophical,
with
the supreme expressions of humanity from the religious humanists
(the
statue "David") or secular humanists (Rodan's "The Thinker"). The
work
of Maplethorpe is fascinating. He goes from some of the most
beautiful
stills I've ever seen to some very homoerotic material that isn't
suitable for public display, well-suited to the term "obscene".
In the theological circles where I "hang out", it's a standard
teaching
and practice that when reaching out to other world views that one
should
not demean the contrary views. We're free to debate and discuss
and
seek to persuade but the principle is in place that we are never
to
deman by belittling or humiliating people or the position being
held.
We never make light of another person's sincerely-held beliefs.
When using art to communicate a thought, hardly anyone here would
accept
as suitable a photograph (in the same manner as we would assess
word)
composed in such a manner as to deman or ridicule blacks,
homosexuals,
moslems, jews, or anyone else for that matter. Nor would we
accept
as
suitable any material which would do so less directly by making
light of
cultural or faith characteristics of any group.
Unless it's Christianity.
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/m2/
