Re: Reply to Janice

On 4/4/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Neither Iain nor I have ever voted Democrat and we are not liable to!!!!
>
> Stop your silly nonsense
>

As I pointed out, I actually voted CONSERVATIVE in the last two general
elections. Janice hasn't chosen to acknowledge this. It wasn't the colour
of the politics that I was objecting to, it was the quote-bombing from an
obvious PROPAGANDA site that I took exception to.

The democrat-supportive quotes that Janice put up were personal opinions
expressed in a reasoned manner. That is why I don't complain about it. I
don't necessarily agree with them.

Janice, if you were to present your OWN opinions, rather than random quote
bombing of other peoples' views from your Freepers website, and refrained
from using childish terms like "kooky" and "whacko", which have no place on
a civilised discussion list, then I also wouldn't object to your views.

As it is, I agree with what Michael said above. I may have had some strong
disagreements with Michael in the past, but I'm with him on this one.

Iain

----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *To:* Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, April 03, 2006 6:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Reply to Janice
>
> At 10:34 AM 4/3/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:
>
> To Janice:
>
> <janmatch@earthlink.net wrote, in part:
> >>@ Will I get any thanks for researching some tip-of-the-iceberg links
> to the left-wing political opinions and websites that have been posted on
> the ASA list for many years?>.
>
> You followed that question by lifting some quotes from the ASA archives
> and also my own web site, quotes with which, apparently, you disagree.
>
>
> @ I was in effect being accused by Lain of acting as a shill for /
> promoting the views of, the Republican party.
>
> I merely illustrated (with actual quotes) the fact that the Democrat Party
> philosophy is presented day in and day out on the ASA list, and yet I found
> no complaints from Lain, or anyone else about that reality.
>
> *That factual illustration was what was material to my post.* My
> agreement or disagreement with what I posted *wasn't material* to my post
> in the least.
>
> Janice -- I apologize (sincerely) for any offense I've given you. I am a
> fan of civility (see Stephen Carter's most excellent book on the subject)
> and disagreements do not mean hostility.
>
>
> @ You have no need to apologize to me since I am in no way offended by
> your beliefs and opinions, any more than I am of others. I'm a big girl
> who knows what she believes, why she believes it, and is quite capable of
> logically defending it.
>
> Indeed, as the record shows -- I'm not among those who show "offense" at
> the opinions of those who disagree with them and pretend to filter them out
> of their email.
>
> The quotes I posted showing support for a particular party (Democrats) -
> are merely the tip-of-the-iceberg *"political" quotes.
>
> *In addition to being accused of being a "Republican activist" here, I
> have also been accused of *not showing Christian charity *in my posts.
>
> If such accusations continue, I will begin posting ASAer's own words (from
> the archives) against them *on that score too.
>
> *I've been lurking here a long time. ..it's not like I don't *know* the
> players.
>
> I am a "liberal" politically (on most, but not all matters). I am fairly
> conservative theologically. A long way from fundamentalism, of course. And
> sometimes, on faith-science issues, that spills over. Peace ~ Burgy
>
>
> @ I allow people to be who they are and am not offended by what they
> choose to believe in the least. I have friends from all walks of life and
> political/religious/non-religious persuasions who will attest to that fact.
> They also know that if they want to disagree with me on any particular
> subject that I have strong opinions on, they had better have done their
> homework before they engage me on it. How they "feel" about things doesn't
> impress me. I don't believe in attempting to reason people out of beliefs
> that they haven't first reasoned themselves into. I know a lot are offended
> by it, but the more I perceive someone's opinions/beliefs to be
> emotion-based, the less likely it is that I would even begin to "seriously"
> engage in debate with them. It's like riding in the boat of a one-armed
> boat-rower. I don't have the time to spend going in endless circles ..
> even though I sometimes amuse myself by coming out and playing with them for
> short periods from time to time. :)
>
> I consider all people to be my friends until they decide to make me their
> enemy. It's their choice.
>
> Peace to you, too, Burgy.
> ~ Janice
>
>
>

--
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------