Julian's parting shots

From: Peter Metcalfe (metcalph@voyager.co.nz)
Date: Thu 14 May 1998 - 15:01:18 EEST

Julian Lord:

Me>>So why should we deny that their [ie the Malkioni] orthodoxy
>>considering that the Brithini themselves do not adhere to all
>>of Malkion's teachings?

>Yes, some of us do have problems with words.
>Could you repeat that in english?

Delete 'that' and see if it makes things any clearer. But
you should be aware by now that this sort of comment is bad
form. After all, people haven't been chastenising you for
putting = on the end of your lines.

Julian had made a blanket statement of his to the effect that
when talking about religion, the term Orthodox Westerners is

Me>>So if I say that 'Orthodox Malkioni (or westerners) worship only
>>the Invisible God', I am uttering gobbledegook in your humble
>>opinion because I am discussing religion?

Julian sidesteps this by digging up another quotation of mine:

::The brithini are not orthodox westerners anymore than jews are
::orthodox christians.

and comments:

>This is theological mish-mash.

Arguing by assertion does not make your point correct. My
statement is not gibberish and neither is the second quote. I have
even explained the statement for you, pointing out that the
difference between the Brithini and orthodox Malkioni is as great
as the difference between orthodox christians and the jews (Digest
#607). I have even explained what definition of orthodoxy I was
using (#610). But you have seen fit to ignore this. Why?

>PS I refuse to participate any further in this
>degrading (to both of us IMVHO) squabble.

Then kindly permit me a few meta-issue comments.

In your postings are numerous statements that are somewhat ...
odd. Phrases to the effect of 'Scientists do not predict
but observe', 'the spirit plane cannot be described in words'
or 'orthodox westerners is a nonsensical phrase when the subject
matter is religion' spring to mind.

When these statements are questioned, you resort to further
curiousities ('Science is Knowledge, Your Move', a confusing theory
that treated thoughts, facts and theory as indistinguishable),
accusations (I am seeking to make the Malkioni righter than anybody
else for 'obscure etymological reasons', hallucinogen consumption)
and other things save, it seems, cogent argument.

Could you not make your statements more understandable in
the future?

- --Peter Metcalfe


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:19 EEST