Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re. Bishop Ussher and the age of the earth,etc.
Message-ID: <1141@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 16:29:47 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1141
Posted: Thu Mar 21 16:29:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 04:57:10 EST
References: <1041@decwrl.UUCP>, <1094@utastro.UUCP> <4992@cbscc.UUCP>, <1117@utastro.UUCP> <5006@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 60



Paul Dubuc writes:

>Are you really a "seeker of knowledge", or do you just like to argue?  I took
>you for the latter because of the tone of your posting (and others).  If you
>just wanted the issue clarified, you could have been less sarcastic.  If I
>have presumed too much about you, then I'm sorry.  I did not conveniently
>omit your quote of Ken.  Any one following the discussion would have read it.
>

My response was to your contribution:

>>A real literary critic we have here, implying perspectival statements
>>must be interpreted in the same sense as statements of identity.  If the
>>subject of your mockery wasn't the Bible your foolishness might be more
>>apparent to you.  I suppose you never speak of the sunset as such?  And
>>when you drive into a gas station asking directions you want them in
>>stellar coordinates.  Either that or, for consistency's sake, you only
>>claim to *appear* to be Padraig Houlahan.  Ken Arndt is making a lot
>>more sense than you, fella (Maybe you should be worried? :-)).
>>
>>Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) 	cbscc!pmd
 
which accused me of:
  1) mocking the bible,
  2) implying that "perspectival statements" are to be
     interpreted like statements of identity,
  3) being foolish
  4) making less sense than Ken,
in a tone that is clearly abrasive. How do you size up according to your
own criteria?

I demonstrated that nothing in my article justified the first charge.
I also showed that I was doing no more than Ken, where the second
charge is concerned. 

As far as seeking knowledge is concerned, I have made the contribution
that there is a serious problem for christians in Ken's definition.
All I have gotten in return are the above accusations. There has
been no retraction of the proposed definition (an act by which
I am under no illusion constitutes a collapse of the christian
point of view), nor a defense of it. The lack of a constructive
 response to the criticism could
be construed as being indicative of the degree of sincerity
with which this discussion is being held i.e. if you have
problems with your position lets talk, but if you show me problems
in mine then you are only argueing for arguments sake, mocking my
holy book, being foolish etc.

If you think the criticism is invalid, then say so, and state
where you think the problems with it are, otherwise you are
wasting both our time by complaining about your perceptions
of the criticism's tone, while ignoring the content. In fact
I really don't mind if you complain about the tone, 
just as long as you include either a defense or retraction.

I expect to be treated similarly.

Padraig Houlahan.