Dear List Members, All of this argumentativeness is unnecessary. I started deleting these types of messages but randomly decided to stop on this one to make a reply. The old rule of thumb still applies on E-mail lists. We should all be given the dignity to make a response according our belief systems, without having to be verbally (via E-mail) attacked by another list member. We can agree to disagree, but we have not agreed to disparage or "attack" one another. It is extremely easy to feel that you or your turf have been personally attacked, even though the other party never intended to do so. This is because the message is in PRINT and carries some feeling of "finality". Since you don't really have the opportunity to immediately question the sender about his motives, most people will think the worst and act accordingly. There is also a tendency to protect your "machismo" or turf, or to escalate the argument to a kind of "King of the Hill" contest. It takes a mature person to overcome these tendencies.
If a list member makes comments that are way out of line, then the manager of the list is the one to decide what action should be taken. In the final analysis, the attacking E-mail almost always reflects poorly on the person writing it and detracts from the purpose of the list. As in almost all cases, if you have to send such an E-mail send it to the person privately! and not to the rest of the group. Otherwise just send a factual rebuttal without any personal attacks. The readers will then be able to evaluate the evidence provided by both sides. Remember to be very careful and review your E-mail for negative tone, or irrelevancies before sending it off. Please excuse me for this intrusion, but I have found all the above to be helpful advice to follow on E-mail lists. Daniel S. ================================================================= > Hi Tom and List, > > Yet more truth from Tom? :( > > > <Doctor Tom M.D. wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > This attitude is totally contrary to religion as I understand > it, but then I am not a fundamentalist. I note that you > concluded that I was not religious simply because I asked > you if your religious sayings had any business on a list > about colloidal silver after you challenged me that my > comments were not appropriate on a silver list. You came > to the wrong conclusion with less basis for that conclusion > more quickly than anyone else I have ever met. This is > not how the scientific method works. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Doctor Tom M.D. wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Will God make her well? How did she get > sick in the first place if God was there? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > I picked up on this method of handling the truth of yours > very early indeed, I will give you that much, Tom. > > > God Bless, > > Scott D.Berner > > 1 TIMOTHY 6:20 > > "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and > vain > babblings, AND OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED: 21 Which some > professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." > > Science Falsely So Called, that is what we are dealing with. Personally, I > would rather have a nickel's worth of common sense. I hope by now the List > has gotten a good hard look into the heart of our new friend and his > compatriots. Pretty dark stuff indeed. Unfortunately. > John 3:16 > "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that > whosoever believeth on Him should not perish , but have everlasting life." >
