>This post rubbed me the same way as Neal Roy's post earlier, in which he
>completely misunderstood the sense of a previous post by Brain Harper. I
>suggest those of you who have been firing such "shots" read through a post
>very carefully before you respond. Ask yourself these things:
>
>1. Do I have anything constructive to contribute? (certainly criticism can be
>constructive if it is expressed in the right way)
>
>2. Am I assuming something about the motives of the person I'm responding to?
>(usually this is a bad way to proceed)
>
>3. Am I responding out of anger or outrage or out of an honest desire to seek
>the truth?
>
>4. Do my words contain more light than heat?
Good rules of thumb -- for all of us. To them I would add
5. Am I reacting to a specific key word or words without considering the
possibility that the individual I'm responding to may define it/them
differently than I do?
>
>Let's all make an effort to keep this discussion about specific issues arising
>from the creation/evolution debate, and to speak the truth in love as we
>exchange our ideas.
Excellent advice. Thanks, Stan.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)