KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick.
If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

I am not interested in wading through any more K&r post to find
anything you are trying to discuss with me. Just my own personal
killfile system. Maybe a function of still using Google to post, Sory
that just the way it has to be.

If you want to discuss the following, drop the K&r crap. TnT

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus
do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say
that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be
able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present
scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not
that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to
blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day
practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so
we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling
on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength
of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or
at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you
not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if
some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments
about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off.
This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine
bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of

setting the terms of engagement.

Talk more later, maybe. TnT