Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hutch on "impoliteness" (part A)
Message-ID: <518@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 19:42:38 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.518
Posted: Mon Feb 11 19:42:38 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 06:29:26 EST
References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 51

>> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway?
>> This is where we all went to avoid him]:  [SARGENT]

> One might indeed ask.  This newsgroup was created to provide a forum in which
> we Christians could discuss issues relevant to Christianity without the
> continual carping and the same old tired, boring, and half-baked presumptions
> about our intellect, background, and reasoning powers which YOU, RICH ROSEN,
> continually spew out upon us.  When net.religion.jewish was created it was
> created to provide a similar forum for Jews to discuss their common religious
> and cultural heritage. [HUTCH]

I quote:
> I think we have a difference of opinion here. Some of the readers &
> posters to net.religion.christian think that net.religion.christian
> should be a nice warm place where Christians can talk about Christianity
> and maybe argue a bit among themselves and not have to defend anything
> they say from flammage/arguments from Rich Rosen and any other non-Christian.
> The problem is that when net.religion.christian was created, a lot of the
> folks that *wanted* it particularily wanted it so that both sides of the
> Christian arguments would go somewhere else so that whatever was left in
> net.religion would be a) lower in volume and b) emphasize something
> other than Christianity. We can read the Christian arguments when we have
> time... (in other words, Rich, you've gotta move too...)  [LAURA CREIGHTON]

I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general,
and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where
appropriate.  My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions
of religion in general.  It is certain Christians who seem to have an argument
with me.

> Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum,
> maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming that
> we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer the
> balm of his superior wisdom upon.  Well, Rich, the three or four articles
> were welcome.  The rest of your postings have been less than worthless.

Thank you.  Your analysis should be given the consideration it is due. 
Considering the articles that have discussed and maligned me in what was
presumed to be my absence, I think I'll continue to respond where appropriate.
Why doesn't Mr. Hutch offer the complete list of my 20 or so articles
accompanied by *his* personal rating of each one?  Perhaps because he doesn't
have the list to back up his own assertion?  Count this among the "impolite"
articles, if you will, when I'm maligned publicly I feel no obligation to be
polite.  May I ask, does "polite" mean "agreeing with your point of view"
while "impolite" means "disagreeing with your point of view"?  RULE #1:
People asking to continue a conversation only under the terms of rational
discussion are actually asking to continue only if you agree with them. 
Anything else would not be rational discussion...
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr